Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH OFFICIALS, WARSAW (WITHDRAWAL)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the official request of the Polish Government that certain members of the British Embassy should be withdrawn from Warsaw: and what were the charges brought against them by the Polish Government.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): In a Note dated 18th December, 1950, the Polish Government demanded the withdrawal from Poland within three days of His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Gdansk, Colonel R. Hazell, and a Second Secretary at His Majesty's Embassy at Warsaw, Mr. E. Gilbert. It was alleged that evidence given at the trial in Warsaw of Group Captain Turner, a former Air Attaché at His Majesty's Embassy, had shown these two British officials to have been engaged in activities constituting an abuse of diplomatic and consular privileges. His Majesty's Government had no option but to comply with the Polish demand. In rejecting as unfounded the charges brought against Colonel Hazell and Mr. Gilbert, His Majesty's Government felt obliged to request as a measure of reprisal, that two members of the Polish Mission in London be recalled within three days.

Professor Savory: Was not the Polish request based entirely upon the four hours' evidence given by this gentleman, Claude Henry Turner? How was it that a British Air Attaché came into open court and gave such amazing evidence against these British officials?

Mr. Davies: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware the Air Attaché was accused of abducting a Polish woman on board ship to bring her to England, and he was tried in a Polish court. As I have already said, we did not and cannot accept the evidence, but I think that the actual charge was in order.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Did the Polish Government comply with the British Government's request about withdrawing two of their Mission's personnel?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir: within three days.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH TYROL

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the fact that in South Tyrol nearly 90 per cent. of the persons employed in the civil service, the judiciary, public security, finance, taxation, forestry, the post office and the railways are Italians, most of whom do not even understand the German language: that this is in violation of Annex 4 of the Treaty of Peace with Italy to which His Majesty's Government are a party: and whether he will call the attention of the Italian Government to this breach of the treaty.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 6th December last, I have no reason to suppose that the Italian Government are not carrying out heir obligations in this regard, though progress in some respects may be somewhat slow. I do not consider that the present position reveals a violation of the Treaty of Peace with Italy: representations to the Italian Government would not, therefore, in my opinion be justified.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the figures given in the Question have been scrupulously verified, and that they clearly show a flagrant breach of Article (1, d) of the Treaty, which guaranteed equality of employment for the Tyrolese with the Italians?

Mr. Davies: I would not agree that it is a breach because progress is being made towards bringing that provision into effect, but it takes time. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that we are faced here with a border territory in which there are two populations, differing in race and


language. Consequently, there is a very keen nationalist spirit, and good will on both sides is necessary.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that the South Tyrolese were subject to maltreatment by Mussolini's Italy for a great many years, and that Hitler's rape of Austria gave them no hope at all? Does he not realise that today they look to Britain to see that the Treaty obligations are maintained so that they can get justice for the first time in many years?

Mr. Davies: The position of these South Tyrolese is very much better than it was under the Mussolini régime. Conditions in the area are prosperous and are generally satisfactory.

Sir Ronald Ross: As the Foreign Office say that action at present would be premature, will they keep the situation under observation so that if they thought that action was justified later they could take it?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir, we are doing that. In view of the sincere interest of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) in this matter, we have received special reports since his last Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Oil Agreement, Persia

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a statement about the negotiations between the Government of Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the negotiations in regard to the supplemental oil agreement which was signed by the company and the Persian Government in July, 1949. The agreement was recently presented for ratification to the Persian Parliament which referred it to its oil commission which, after reporting unfavourably on it in general terms, has now been instructed to review the position further.
His Majesty's Government cannot be indifferent to the affairs of this important British interest. The company's present concession is valid until 1993, and His Majesty's Government are confident that Persia will honour her agreement. As

to the supplemental oil agreement, His Majesty's Government regard it as fair and reasonable. But, as the matter is under review in Persia, I cannot say more at present except to express the hope that a satisfactory conclusion will soon be reached.

Mr. Reid: Is it a fact that, in connection with these negotiations, proposals have been made for the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company?

Mr. Davies: No official proposals of which I am aware have been made either to His Majesty's Government or to the oil company.

Mr. Erroll: Do the Government tender advice to the company in their capacity as principal shareholder or only as the Government?

Treaties

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what States in the Middle East Britain is bound by treaty to defend: to what extent conditions are imposed in such treaties as to the efforts to be made by those countries in self-defence: and whether he is satisfied that such conditions are being observed.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As the reply to this Question is necessarily long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the Foreign Office do all they can to settle the existing difficulty between Egypt and Britain, so that we may combine against Communism and keep safe the Suez Canal?

Mr. Davies: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is most concerned about restoring, or maintaining, friendly relations between these countries and peaceful conditions in the whole of the Middle East.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Quite apart from the details which the hon. Gentleman has promised to circulate, can he give an assurance that an effort is being made in this area towards self-defence on the part of the nations concerned?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. The Government believe that these countries have a lively appreciation of the necessity for


strengthening their defences. Within the limits of their economies and avail-abilities they are doing what they can.

Following is the reply:

The United Kingdom has Treaties of Alliance with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan and a Treaty of Mutual Assistance with Turkey. The former provide that if either party becomes involved in war the other will immediately come to her aid in the capacity of an ally. The latter is a tripartite Treaty involving the French Government also, and provides that, in the event of Turkey being attacked by a European Power or in the event of an act of aggression by a European Power leading to a war in the Mediterranean area in which Turkey is involved, the United Kingdom and France will collaborate effectively with Turkey and will lend her all aid and assistance in their power. Turkey is similarly pledged to come to the aid of the United Kingdom and France in the event of an act of aggression by a European Power leading to war in the Mediterranean area in which those two countries are involved. This provision does not, however, oblige Turkey to enter into armed conflict with the Soviet Union if France or the United Kingdom are involved in war with that country.

No conditions are imposed in the Treaty with Turkey as to the efforts to be made by any of its signatories in self-defence. It is, however, well known that Turkey is maintaining her armed forces in a high state of readiness and that their efficiency is steadily being increased. In addition to the general implication that those countries shall maintain their armed forces at a sufficient pitch of efficiency to discharge the obligations incurred, the Treaties with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan oblige them to put certain facilities at the disposal of His Majesty's Forces in time of peace. These facilities relate in the main to communications and transit rights and to the right of the United Kingdom to maintain certain forces in the Canal Zone of Egypt and certain units of the Royal Air Force in Iraq and Jordan. These Treaties also provide for cooperation between the United Kingdom and those countries in the training and equipment of their armed forces. His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the way in which those obligations are being carried out.

Sinai Peninsula

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the southern portion of the Sinai Peninsula, which under the Agreement of 1906 remained part of Turkey and was taken from Turkey by British forces during the 1914–18 war, and has never been formally allocated to Egypt.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The grant of the right to administer this territory was confirmed by a firman issued by the Sultan

of Turkey to the Khedive Abbas of Egypt on 8th May, 1892, and was later enshrined in Notes exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government in May, 1906. The eastern frontier of Egypt was never explicitly defined after the. First World War, when Egypt became an independent kingdom and by the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey renounced all rights and titles to territories lying outside her frontiers. Egypt has, however, been in continuous occupation and possession of South Sinai ever since 1922. No Government has ever contested the fact that Egypt exercises effective sovereignty over this area.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that this area was taken away by us from Turkey, that it has never been given to Egypt and, therefore, belongs to us as much as to anybody else?

Mr. Davies: Prior to our taking it away from Turkey, it was administered by Egypt, and continued to be administered by Egypt following the Treaties of Peace after the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Maclean: Surely the mere tact of administration does not confer sovereignty.

CHINA (CONSULATE, TIHWA)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

5. Mr. FITZROY MACLEAN,—TO ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Chinese Communist Government to his protest against the ill-treatment and expulsion of His Majesty's Consul-General at Tihwa.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Before this Question is answered, Sir, might I ask whether, in the case of a Government with which we are in diplomatic relations, it is in order to introduce the word, "Communist," or any other word of the kind, between the words, "Chinese" and "Government." If, in fact, that is in order, would it be equally in order to refer, on the Order Paper, to the "Yugoslav Communist Government," the "Spanish Fascist Government" or the "American Capitalist Government"?

Mr. Speaker: I have always understood that the various Governments were Conservative, Liberal, Communist or something else. One surely is entitled to refer to them as such. This is not a point of order as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Silverman: Has it not always been held, Sir, that in relation to Governments with which we maintain diplomatic relations any kind of adverse comment or reflection of that kind is out of order? Questions which make reflections of that kind are normally refused at the Table. I think that you will appreciate the substance of my point, Mr. Speaker, when I say that, if it once were to be allowed in this case, it could be allowed in a wide variety of other circumstances which would be embarrassing to everybody.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member objects to this Question. He says that the word "Communist" must be offensive, but that is not necessarily so. We have had members of that party in this House and, because they belonged to that party, we have always referred to them as Communist Members, and it was not offensive in any way.

Mr. Silverman: I have not made my point quite clear. I am not suggesting that in everybody's eyes the word "Communist" is offensive, though it certainly is in the eyes of some people. What I am suggesting is that, if one uses a comment of this kind in a Question, which can be variously interpreted in various quarters by various people, then the door is open to a wide variety of such Questions, which may constantly cause embarrassment in the House. It is sufficient, if an hon. Member wants to ask a Question about a Government, to talk about the "Chinese Government" or the "Albanian Government" or any other Government. Once one is permitted to put in an adjectival reference of this kind, the rules which the House has always observed begin to be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker: I have no time to answer that submission. The hon. Member has now wasted five minutes of the time of the House. Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) is "None. Sir."

Mr. Maclean: If the Government are to maintain relations with the Chinese

Communists, will they at least take steps to ensure that His Majesty's diplomatic and consular representatives are treated with the respect they deserve?

Mr. Davies: That was the purpose of the two protests that we have made.

YUGOSLAVIA

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the discussions between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government regarding joint action in the event of an attack on Yugoslavia.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increasingly hostile propaganda both by Press and wireless being carried on by Yugoslavia's neighbours and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against that country, he will consult with other Atlantic Treaty Powers with a view to a guarantee of assistance if Yugoslavia is attacked.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in this House on 15th February.

Mr. Price: Will my hon. Friend consider what indirect aid we could give to Yugoslavia in the way of materials and parts of war equipment, if her Government should ask for it?

Mr. Davies: As I think my hon. Friend is aware, we have advanced credits to Yugoslavia for raw materials and other commodities which are being purchased in this country.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the Yugoslav frontier is violated, it may be as the result of a border incident or fracas, leading to action and counteraction and to something larger eventually in the initial stages of which Russia may not take part? Can we have an assurance that no guarantee on the part of this country will be given to intervene in all circumstances without prior investigation?

Mr. Davies: I do not think that a major question of policy such as that can


be adequately dealt with by Parliamentary question and answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that once we gave a similar guarantee to Poland, and that it did not prevent a war but precipitated it?

Mr. Julian Amery: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that His Majesty's Government are in consultation with other associated Governments with regard to measures which we might be able to take if, unfortunately, Yugoslavia were to be attacked?

Mr. Davies: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Yugoslavia is a member of the United Nations and that we are, of course, interested in seeing that action which was appropriate to the circumstances should be taken by the United Nations.

Mr. Amery: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously mean that nothing more than the ordinary action taken through United Nations is being taken, that no particular consultations have taken place?

Mr. F. Maclean: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the warnings of the kind given by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the other day would carry much more weight if we had a proper defence system in the Mediterranean to back them up?

BURMA (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how a saving of £700.000 has been made in the Short Term Aid to Burma, Loan, as shown in sub-head N of the Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate, 1951:
(2) how a saving of £878,110 has been made in the compensation payment to the Burmah Oil Company as shown in sub-head M of the Foreign Office Supplementary Estimate, 1951.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No payment at all on account of these services is expected during the current financial year. Part of the anticipated savings on these services is, therefore, included in the Supplementary Estimates, in order to reduce the

net sum payable in respect of this Estimate to £10. Parliament will be requested to re-vote in the 1951–52 Estimates the full amounts provided in the original Estimates.

Mr. Erroll: Will the full original sum ultimately be available to the Burma Government and the Burmah Oil Company respectively?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir: that is so.

ERITREA (SHIFTA, SENTENCES)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of Shifta were incarcerated on 30th November, 1950: and how many are now in prison.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Sixty Shifta were serving prison sentences on 30th November, 1950, and 95 on 17th February, 1951.

Mr. Freeman: What is the period for which these men are now being imprisoned?

Mr. Davies: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Paton: Can my hon. Friend say what are "Shifta"?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: The Liberals.

Mr. Davies: They are armed gangs.

FOREIGN BROADCASTS

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money was spent on foreign service broadcasts during 1950: how much has been allocated for the current year: and whether, in view of the urgent need for propaganda to combat Communism, it is intended to increase the amount.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The grant-in-aid to the B.B.C. for overseas services in 1950–51 was £4,685,000. The exact figure for 1951–52 has not yet been finally settled, but is likely to be slightly less.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it was announced in the Press yesterday that this sum was being reduced? Having regard to the fact that there are, for the first time, faint but


hopeful signs of the rot setting in in some of the countries behind the Iron Curtain will he impress upon whoever may be concerned that this sum should be increased this year?

Mr. Davies: I find it very difficult to understand hon. Members opposite. We are being pressed frequently to reduce expenditure, and here is a case where we are being urged to increase it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this arm of broadcasting is one of the most vital that we can use in our general defence arrangements, and will he give a less flippant answer to the House to a serious question?

Mr. Davies: We are very well aware of the value of broadcasting, and consider it part of the defence arm, but, in view of the very heavy expenditure on re-armament which will be encountered during the coming year, we have to cut down where it is possible to do so, and this is one of the matters on which expenditure is being reviewed at the present time.

Mr. Butler: Has not the hon. Gentleman condemned himself out of his own mouth? If he is to spend money on rearmament, he cannot spend it in any better way than in improving the foreign service of the B.B.C.

Mr. Davies: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, not all the expenditure on the B.B.C. can be interpreted as defence expenditure, and it is in those directions where it is not so considered that the reductions will be made.

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend consider inviting one of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so concerned about the matter, to write a letter to the "Daily Express" about it, in view of that newspaper's remarks this morning?

Mr. Profumo: In view of the Government's determined desire to settle our differences with Communist Russia by discussion, does the Under-Secretary not think that these broadcasts should be increased very considerably indeed, as part of the defence programme? Further, if the Government cannot afford to spend enough money, will they cut down on the money spent on the Central Office of Information in propagating their own

ideas, which no Minister of the Crown in his right mind would support?

Mr. Hopkinson: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Under-Secretary's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.

14. Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform and to China: when these objects were laid down: and in what way they have been modified since that time.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas broadcasts result from the licence and agreement of 29th November. 1946, between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The Corporation shares the view of His Majesty's Government that the national interest requires overseas broadcasts to give a true account of world events, and, in particular, of British policy and practice in both national and international affairs. This criterion applies with especial force to the particular services about which the hon. and gallant Member inquires. There is no document defining the objects of these services. Consultation and collaboration with the appropriate Departments is a continuous and daily process, and account is taken of all developments affecting the national interest.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best B.B.C. broadcasts to the Communist-dominated countries are those which clearly depart from the directive to which he has referred? In view of the great change in the international situation, does he not think that it is about time that a new directive was given?

Mr. Davies: It is not a question of a directive, but of consultation between the Departments concerned. To talk in terms of a directive is not accurate.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: In arriving at his decision on policy, do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues take into account the monitoring scripts of all broadcasts that


are coming from the Communist countries, particularly in the Far East, where very good guidance as to what is most effective can be obtained?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. runs its own monitoring service, which is of inestimable value.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the existing B.B.C. broadcasts, such as "Soviet View" and "Soviet Affairs" are, in fact, subtle Communist propaganda, and that there are far too many fellow-travellers in the B.B.C.?

Mr. Davies: If there are, they seem to have very little effect.

15. Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that no proper machinery exists to coordinate British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform, to the Baltic States or to China, with United States Government broadcasts to these countries or with broadcasts of Free Europe Radio: and if he will take urgent steps to set up suitable machinery.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government collaborate closely with the United States Government in matters of broadcasting policy. In this way, there is adequate co-ordination, and no additional machinery is necessary. Radio Free Europe is a non-Governmental organisation with which no direct liaison has been found necessary.

Major Beamish: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Radio Free Europe has the open and acknowledged blessing of the State Department? In those circumstances, since it is broadcasting to the Communist-dominated countries of Eastern Europe, how can he possibly say that no liaison is necessary?

Mr. Davies: As I have said, we collaborate and consult with the United States Government in these matters, but Radio Free Europe is not operated or administered in any way by the United States Government.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is wholly misinformed, that some liaison does already take place, and

that what I am asking for is proper liaison?

Mr. Deedes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that "The Voice of America" broadcast non-stop for 48 hours and in 28 languages explaining very fully our reply to the Soviet Note? Did we know about that, and what they were saying?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I have already explained that we have consultation and collaboration with the State Department, which operates "The Voice of America," and that we have a monitoring service which monitors all broadcasts sent out from all stations.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has my hon. Friend any evidence to indicate that these broadcasts are making any difference at all?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister satisfied, beyond any possible doubt, that there is allocated to the B.B.C. a wholly adequate number of wavelengths for this most vital purpose?

Mr. Davies: Allocation of wavelengths is made according to the Copenhagen Plan. Unfortunately, under that Plan, we are in difficulties with certain wavelengths which cover Germany, and Eastern Germany in particular, and discussions in that respect are now going on.

Major Beamish: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) in the ballot for the Motion for the Adjournment, so that I can raise this subject again.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (STATUTE)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the Government's attitude to the proposed protocol for the amendment of the Statute of Europe approved by the Committee of Seven in Paris in December, 1950.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The protocol to which my hon. Friend refers is one of many proposals for the amendment of the Statute of the Council of Europe which are being discussed in Paris this


week by a committee of Government officials. All these proposals, which will subsequently have to be considered by the Committee of Ministers, are the subject of confidential discussion between Governments, and I regret that it would not be proper to disclose the attitude of His Majesty's Government to any of them at the present stage.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that, in view of the far-reaching nature of some of these proposals, no decision will be taken by the Government until the House has been consulted?

Mr. Davies: I cannot give that undertaking. This matter will go before the Committee of Ministers. The views of the House are known, to a large extent, on the whole question of the Council of Europe, as a result of the debate which we had some weeks ago.

Mr. Edelman: Will my hon. Friend resist with all the means in his power this ingenious attempt at back door pressure?

Mr. Davies: To the extent that the proposal touches on the whole concept of the Council of Europe and suggests changing the Consultative Assembly from a consultative to a legislative body, the Government are opposed to it.

EUROPEAN DEFENCE (FRENCH PLAN)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the text of the Pleven plan for a European Army as presented to the Conference on European Defence now taking place in Paris.

Mr. Ernest Davies: No, Sir. It is for the French Government, who have presented the plan, to publish it if they so wish.

Mr. Fletcher: As considerable extracts have appeared in the American Press would it not be for the convenience of the House to have a copy in the Library?

Mr. Davies: It may be that that copy was not marked "Top Secret," as was the copy I have seen.

KOREA (38th PARALLEL)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the landing of South Korean marines supported by a naval bombardment from American ships at Wonsan, 88 miles north of the 38th Parallel: and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in view of their official pronouncement that the 38th Parallel ought not to be crossed again without full consultation with the United Nations, and, in particular, with those Member States whose Forces are fighting in Korea.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, Sir. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in the House on 12th February, His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Government on questions connected with the 38th Parallel.

Mr. Brockway: Will the Minister bear in mind that on the last occasion when the United Nations troops reached the 38th Parallel, the offer of negotiations then was prejudiced by the advance permitted to the South Koreans, and will he keep that in mind in view of the landing now of South Koreans north of the 38th Parallel?

Mr. Davies: I cannot quite accept the interpretation put forward by my hon. Friend of the situation which arose at that time. Before crossing the 38th Parallel, an appeal was made by the United Nations, General MacArthur, and by members of the American and British Governments, for a surrender of the North Koreans or for negotiations, but there was no response.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the question of the crossing of the 38th Parallel at. present governed by the United Nations' Resolution of 7th October, 1950? Does the Prime Minister's statement mean that His Majesty's Government are going to seek a modification of that Resolution?

Mr. Davies: The United Nations' Resolution stands, but statements have subsequently been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, by President Truman, and by General MacArthur. For the sake of clarity, I would


point out that the present position is this. It has been made clear that where, for local tactical reasons, it may be necessary to make small incursions over the 38th Parallel, that would be considered a military matter, but that any substantial crossing of the Parallel would be a political matter on which consultation would take place.

Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement, could my hon. Friend undertake that no British Forces will be allowed, except in the purely tactical sense to which he refers, beyond the 38th Parallel until agreement on the political aspects of the matter has been reached with our Allies?

Mr. Davies: The operations in Korea are by United Nations Forces, and action taken there will be a matter for the U.N. command representing all the nations providing the troops and materials for those Forces.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a report which has appeared today that His Majesty's Government have ordered British naval forces to cease operations north of the 38th Parallel is correct or incorrect?

Mr. Davies: I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. Philips Price: Can my hon. Friend say whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office were consulted, or even informed, before this action was taken north of the 38th Parallel?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. The Press has described this as a raid, and we have no reason to believe that it is anything other than a raid. The troops have since been withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Antigua (Historic Buildings)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the bad state of repair of the historic buildings of Lord Nelson's dockyard at English Harbour, Antigua: and whether he will open a fund or otherwise take steps to make their restoration possible.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): I am already in consultation with the Governor about the state of repair of these buildings.

Caribbean Union (Commission)

Mr. P. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission upon the Unification of Public Services in the British Caribbean: and what further steps it is proposed to take.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The report of the Commission has been referred to the Governors of the territories concerned for consideration by the Legislatures. Only the Legislative Council of St. Vincent has yet completed consideration of the report, and it has approved the Commission's recommendations. The implementation of the report depends primarily on the decisions of the Legislatures, and it has been made clear that His Majesty's Government have no wish to prejudge or influence those decisions.

Mr. Smithers: While I agree that this is a matter for the Legislatures, as there seems to be a likelihood of general approval of these reforms cannot the Secretary of State urge the Legislatures to complete their discussions as soon as possible?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate and will agree with me that in a matter of this kind, beyond commending it to their earnest consideration, I do not think we should try to bring pressure upon them to speed up their consideration.

SINGAPORE (RIOTS)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why military forces were not called upon to quell the riots in Singapore unti11 o'clock on Tuesday morning, 12th December, when the police had completely lost control of the situation early in the afternoon of Monday, 11th December.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should prefer not to comment on matters which are within the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry, and which must, therefore, be regarded as sub judice for the moment.

Squadron Leader Burden: While appreciating that position, will the Minister give an assurance that if circumstances of a like kind were to arise again in the meantime, the military would be called out without delay?

Mr. Griffiths: I prefer not to make any statement upon this matter until the Commission of Inquiry have completed their task and have reported.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister say when he expects the inquiry to be completed?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir, but as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have seen from Press reports, the Commission have begun their work and are taking evidence in public.

Squadron Leader Burden: Does the Minister realise that a very prominent Straits paper stated that the loss of life and the damage to property and to the reputation of the Colony were very great? In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that adequate steps will immediately be taken to suppress any rising that may occur between now and when the Commission reports?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Tourist Trade

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what he is doing to encourage the hotel and tourist trade in Cyprus.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is primarily the concern of the Cyprus Government, whose recent activities include the provision of increased publicity, the opening of tourist information bureaux in the island, the improvement of access roads to ancient monuments, and radical reform of the hotel law and regulations. In 1950, what is believed to be a record figure of 20,000 tourists visited Cyprus, and it is estimated that they spent some £900,000.

Commander Noble: As the tourist traffic is of the greatest importance to Cyprus, will the Minister do everything he can to encourage the building of hotels there, and facilitate British capital going to Cyprus?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I think that the change in the regulation to which I have referred makes a notable improvement in that respect.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Is the Minister aware that Cyprus is one of the finest holiday resorts in the world, and that there, at least, there is an abundance of good cheap food and drink?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is not one of the greatest handicaps to the tourist trade of Cyprus the very heavy cost of getting there by air? Would the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleague the Minister of Civil Aviation, to see whether British European Airways could not, as an experiment, run cheap trips to Cyprus during the tourist season?

Mr. Griffiths: I will consult my right hon. Friend about that.

Leather Industry

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to protect the local leather industry in Cyprus.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Cyprus Government have helped this industry by reducing the import duty on raw hides and skins, and by exempting entirely from import duty all substances used in tanning, except sumac, which is produced locally.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister give special consideration to the lowering of the duty on imported hides which are to be used for further manufacture in the island, because that is a matter which is felt very strongly?

Mr. Griffiths: That is primarily a matter for the Cyprus Government, but I will take note of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Barbary Apes

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the subsistence allowance of 4d. a day paid out of civil funds for the maintenance of each of the Barbary apes at Gibraltar is still sufficient: when the amount was fixed at 4d.; and to what extent the ape population has increased or decreased since the end of the war.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am informed that the allowance of 4d. a day each for the Gibraltar Barbary apes is still sufficient. The allowance was raised from 3d. to 4d. in 1944. At the end of the war there were 20 apes in Gibraltar: there are now 30, all, I am assured, well fed and in excellent health.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that there is an undue predominance of males?

Mr. Griffiths: I see from the records that in 1944, when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, he gave a direction that the establishment should be raised to 24 and maintained at that figure. I am glad to be able to say that we are now above establishment.

Mr. Gammans: Can the Minister say how he reconciles the statement that this amount is sufficient, in view of the fact that it costs 1s. a day to keep an ape in the London Zoo? Further, since these are State apes, borne on Civil Service funds, are they not automatically entitled to a cost-of-living bonus?

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Gentleman who has asked this Question has not declared his interest?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these apes have any representation on the people's council which decides how much they get to live on?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall convey to them the interest of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Harrison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government still seriously accepts the legend that while these apes live on Gibraltar, the British will remain there?

Mr. F. Maclean: In view of the point of order raised a short time ago by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), will the Minister ascertain whether these apes resent being described as "Barbary" apes?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall convey to them the keen interest of the House in their welfare.

Evacuees

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many evacuees from Gibraltar now remain in this country.

Mr. J. Griffiths: All who applied for repatriation have now returned home, except one family detained here by illness. About 2,000 Gibraltarians have chosen to stay here permanently.

HONG KONG (OIL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS)

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what quantities of oil have been shipped to China from Hong Kong since 1st October, 1950: and whether steps are being taken to stop further shipments.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There have been no shipments of petroleum oils from Hong Kong to China since 1st October, 1950, except for 308 gallons of petrol in December to repay a loan made by the Chinese authorities to a British salvage vessel. The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among oil executives in the United States that the Chinese are getting oil through Hong Kong? Is his answer to be taken as an absolute assertion that there is no possibility of this whatsoever, apart from the minor exception he has mentioned?

Mr. Griffiths: Apart from the exception, the answer is as given, that since 1st October, 1950, there have been no shipments.

Mr. Nigel Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what quantities of oil were imported into Hong Kong in the months of October, November and December, 1949, and 1950 respectively.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The import figures, by quantity, of petroleum oils into Hong Kong are not yet available in London for the months of October to December, 1950. I am obtaining the figures from Hong Kong and will send them to the hon. Member, with comparative figures for 1949, as soon as possible.

COLONIAL STUDENTS (HOSTEL, LONDON)

Mr. P. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what principle Colonial students are selected


for admission to the Hans Crescent Hostel: and whether any preference is given to students who are preparing for Government service.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The aim is to produce a balanced student community, widely representative not only of the various Colonial territories but also of the different subjects of study. Priority is given to new arrivals in the United Kingdom, for whom up to half the places are reserved. Thirty-five places are reserved for 15 cadets taking the First Devonshire Course and 20 English students attending London University, who in turn release a corresponding number of places at their hostels for colonial students. This admixture of U.K. students has been a conspicuous success. The future career of a student is only one factor, though an important one, affecting his admission to Hans Crescent Hostel.

DISTURBANCE, MUKALLA

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

28. Mr. FENNER BROCKWAY,—TO ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the shooting in Mukalla of 16 persons during a demonstration outside the Sultan's palace in protest against a recent appointment to the Secretariat.

Mr. Brockway: I ask that this Question be transferred to Questions not for oral answer, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Questions cannot be transferred from the Order Paper. They must either be asked or not asked.

[See Written Answers, Col. 184.]

TANGANYIKA (DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ASSETS)

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent any part of the proposed £24,000,000 to be expended by the Government of Tanganyika on its welfare programme will be spent in acquiring any assets of the Overseas Development Corporation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Government of Tanganyika hope to purchase from the Overseas Food Corporation some surplus material which is suitable for use in implementing the territory's development programme, but it is not possible at this stage to give details of the nature or cost of purchases which have still to be made.

Mr. Marshall: Would the Minister give sympathetic consideration to any mutual arrangements that can be made in this direction?

Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister say anything about the transfer? Will it be done by open sale or at valuation, and, if at valuation, who will do the valuing?

Mr. Griffiths: Discussion is taking place about this between the Tanganyika Government and the O.D.C.

JAMAICA (MAROONS OF ACCOMPONG)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a procedure for the election of a new colonel of the Maroons of Accompong has now been agreed: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand from the Acting Governor of Jamaica that Mr. T. J. Cawley has been elected colonel.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the remarkable history of these people, will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that, under the leadership of their new colonel, they will be enabled to preserve their identity and that measure of self-government that they have always enjoyed?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Inquiry, Sierra Leone (Report)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make available to Members of this House copies of the report of the Board of Inquiry appointed by the Governor of Sierra Leone to examine the causes and circumstances of the disturbance which broke out at the Marampa mine of the Sierra Leone Development Company: and


whether he will take steps in advance to find out whether other similar companies in West Africa are creating the risk of similar disturbances by adopting practices similar to those which were adversely commented upon by the Board in the case of this company.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am arranging to place a copy of the report in the Library. I am glad to say that subsequent negotiations between the company and the union have resulted in a satisfactory settlement on most of the matters in the report. My Assistant Labour Adviser has recently returned from Sierra Leone, where he had consultations with the Governor on labour relations in the territory generally: and my hon. Friend may rest assured that any general lessons that may be learned from an incident of this kind are not neglected.

Sir R. Acland: Does the Minister agree that the report shows that a little while ago a most unsatisfactory state of affairs existed and that it is a matter for consideration whether there is need for investigation to see that similar situations do not develop elsewhere?

Mr. Griffiths: As I indicated, my Assistant Labour Officer has recently been in Sierra Leone to investigate the whole position. He has just returned and we are discussing the matter with him.

Sir R. Acland: Without any hostility, may I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment on 2nd March?

Co-operative Mission (Reports)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet arranged for the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone Governments to publish the report of the Co-operative Mission which, at his invitation, visited those Colonies in 1949.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Sierra Leone Report has been published. As regards the Gold Coast Report, the Governor considers that publication at this juncture might hinder rather than help the carrying out of the recommendations of the Commission, which is now being actively pursued. The report was made to the Governor, and publication is in his discretion.

Mr. Keeling: Should not the Sierra Leone report have been published without pressure from the House? Is it not a waste of money to send out this Commission and then to suppress their report?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that these Commissions are appointed by the Governor in consultation with His Majesty's Government, but the publication of reports has always been at the discretion of the Governor, which I think is right.

Gambia (Poultry Disease)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received of outbreaks of fowl pest or other disease in the Gambia: and what steps he is taking to deal with them.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Common poultry diseases such as fowl typhoid have been known to exist in the Gambia for a considerable time. Fowl pest was first diagnosed and reported at the end of 1949. It has not been possible to bring these diseases under general control. I understand, however, that the Colonial Development Corporation have taken measures for the effective isolation of their poultry farm, where trouble has been confined to a single outbreak of fowl typhoid which is now under control.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the somewhat disappointing results of the Colonial Development Corporation Scheme which the Minister of Food revealed last week have nothing much to do with the question of disease?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another question.

Mr. John Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information about the extent to which fowl pest in the Gambia has necessitated the destruction of fowls?

Mr. Griffiths: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Groundnuts

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that, owing to the breakdown of recently imported locomotives on the Nigerian railways, stocks of groundnuts are again


accumulating at Kano: and what steps he proposes to remedy the situation.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. Action is being taken in consultation with the manufacturers to restore the locomotives to service with the least possible delay. Any substantial accumulation of stocks at Kano should only be temporary since, owing to bad weather, this year's crop of groundnuts is, unfortunately, small.

Mr. Russell: In view of the well-known shortage of groundnuts, is it not rather fantastic that even the smallest stock should be allowed to accumulate?

Mr. Griffiths: It is indeed regrettable, and we are doing our very best to speed up these repairs.

Mr. Sorensen: What was the cause of the breakdown? Were the locomotives imported from this country?

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In view of the fact that they will no longer be needed on the Government Groundnut Scheme in East Africa, would it be possible to transfer the locomotives to West Africa, to help private enterprise?

Mr. Griffiths: I could not answer that without previous notice.

Mr. Alport: Can the Minister say whether the breakdown of the locomotives was due to the poor quality of Nigerian coal, a great deal of which we are now to import into this country?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does not the Minister remember the great loss which took place in accumulated stocks at Kano two years ago owing to attack by weevil? How does he explain this repetition, even though on a smaller scale, in exactly the same circumstances, due to lack of railway materials?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that, and we are giving this matter earnest consideration. It is very regrettable that stocks should be allowed to accumulate.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the traffic in groundnuts between Nigeria and neighbouring French territory owing to the higher prices obtainable there: and what steps he proposes to stop this traffic.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is no reliable evidence that there has been any significant movement of groundnuts across the border from Nigeria. I understand that the French buying season has now closed

Mr. Russell: Even if there had been any at all does it not show up the artificial situation created by Government control of prices and trading in this way?

Museum, Ife

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has a statement to make with regard to the museum at Ife, Nigeria, which was constructed by the Public Works Department at a cost of over £8,000, and the roof of which fell in immediately after completion: what will be the total cost of the building when safe and ready for occupation: and what will be the total time then taken from commencement of building to completion.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The museum at Ife was finished early in 1949. A year later defects appeared in the roof, which had to be stripped and dismantled. I understand that the museum was to be opened in August, 1950, but I have asked the Governor for further information on this and other points and will write to my hon. Friend when it is received.

Mr. Cooper: Since these treasures, which are not only of interest to Nigeria but of international interest, might well have been damaged by what happened, would the Minister ask the Governor to look into the standards of work of the Public Works Department there?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I will.

Coal Exports

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much coal has been shipped from Nigeria to this country since it was decided to import Nigerian coal: how much awaits shipment at the colliery and Port Harcourt, respectively: and to what extent the ships sent to load it have been kept waiting.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have asked the Governor of Nigeria for the information requested and will communicate further with the hon. Member when his reply is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

National Service

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given by the Kenya Government to the request of the leaders of the Asian and African peoples that National Service should not be confined to the Europeans.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When Asian and African members of the Kenya Legislative Council asked whether Asians and Africans could be conscribed for military training the Government spokesman replied that it was thought best to apply the principle of conscription first to Europeans, but that he would welcome discussions with the Asian and African members with a view to its extension. There has not yet been an opportunity for these discussions.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Kenya Government the fact that the introduction of conscription for one section in a mixed community will certainly tend to increase the present discontent in Kenya?

Mr. Griffiths: That is why it was stated by the Government spokesman that he would welcome discussion on this matter with representatives of the Africans and Asians.

Mr. Alport: In view of this voluntary proposal to serve in the Armed Forces in East Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that this gives a great opportunity for expanding the colonial forces in East Africa?

African Farmers (Loans)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Kenya Government charge 8 per cent. interest on loans to African farmers.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The rate of interest charged is that recommended by the Committee on Agricultural Credit for Africans. The Committee recommended a rate of 8 per cent. to be reduced to six where a clear title to land existed as security. The rate was calculated as being just sufficient to cover interest payable to Government, working expenses and bad debts, and not being so favourable as to prejudice the chances of forming and developing a system of credit through

co-operative societies, including the establishment of a co-operative central bank. The Committee considered that ultimately only such a system could achieve generally the aim of providing the credit required for African farmers.

Mr. Rankin: While welcoming the reduction from 8 per cent. to 6 per cent., may I ask my right hon. Friend to see that more attention is given to this matter, because even 6 per cent. hardly seems a cheap money policy?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that, and I agree entirely with the Committee that the right way to solve this problem is by encouraging co-operation in all its forms.

Mr. H. A. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Kenya Government are not described as "shabby moneylenders"?

Coffee Growing (Permits)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent permits have been given to African farmers to grow coffee in the Fort Hall and Nyeri districts, Kenya: and when permits are similarly to be granted to African farmers in the Kiambu district and in other districts of Kenya where at present Africans are not allowed to grow coffee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Areas in Nyeri districts were scheduled only in November, 1949, and so far 400 licences have been issued. Up to the present, plantings have been provided free in order to popularise growing of coffee in this area. Later, a small charge may be made on lines similar to those introduced by cooperatives elsewhere. The areas in Fort Hall have only recently been scheduled, and in consequence no licences have yet been issued, but experience elsewhere has shown that few licences are issued until considerable propaganda has been carried out by agricultural officers. The question of permitting cultivation of Arabica coffee in Kiambu is under consideration.

Mr. Brockway: While expressing appreciation of the permission to grow coffee in the Fort Hall and Nyeri districts, may I ask my right hon. Friend to press for the rapid acceptance of no racial discrimination in other parts of Kenya in this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, I will. At the same time, in view of the danger of disease, it is very desirable that the extension of the growing of coffee should be controlled. It is purely for that reason, and for no other, that control is necessary.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to maintain the quality of coffee from those areas, which has gained a most enviable reputation over many years and which might be endangered if native grown coffee, particularly in the form of buni, were allowed to be exported?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. That is why control is essential, but it is essential for that purpose only.

Mr. Brockway: Should not the principle of action be determined by whether the plants are open to disease and not whether they are grown by European or African farmers?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no discrimination about coffee growing by African farmers, and is it not best to leave the decision in the hands of the competent agricultural officers in Kenya?

Mr. Brockway: Is it not a fact that regulations issued in 1934 and 1949 prohibit Africans from growing coffee in Kenya except in certain scheduled districts?

Mr. Griffiths: That was a fact. Perhaps I may refer my hon. Friend to the last part of my answer:
The question of permitting cultivation of Arabica coffee in Kiambu is under consideration.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Dodds: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement upon the progress of the erection of the South Bank Exhibition, giving details of the sections which are up to and behind schedule.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Progress on the construction of the South Bank Exhibition has been appreciably delayed both by continuous bad weather and by interruptions of work due to industrial disputes.
A loss of approximately one-fifth of the total working time since last summer has been caused by bad weather. I have no similar estimate of the effects of unofficial strikes, but these have necessarily had consequences greater than the loss of time of the men actually involved. Nevertheless, the Festival Office are satisfied that, given an improvement in weather conditions and no further interruptions of work, the Exhibition will open on the arranged date of 4th May.
The underground services and the bulk of the external building work have now been completed, and Exhibition display construction is proceeding in nearly all the pavilions. Bad weather has particularly delayed paving work, and if there is no improvement there will be difficulty in ensuring clean access to the buildings for the installation of- exhibits. The House will appreciate that to give details of the sections would involve a lengthy statement of a technical nature. I am being kept fully informed and, while I do not underestimate the difficulties, I am confident that, barring further accidents, the Exhibition will open according to plan.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chairman of the Works Committee on the site stated yesterday that the men will do everything possible to see that the Exhibition is opened on time, that it will be the best Exhibition the world has yet seen, and that they would like to see it continue into 1952?

Mr. Morrison: I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, although he expects the Exhibition to open on the right day, he expects the work to be completed by that day?

Mr. Morrison: Substantially, I think so: it may be that all of it will, but it is conceivable that some things may not be quite finished. However, that would not interfere with the opening.

Mr. Oakshott: As we all wish the Festival of Britain to be a great success, may I ask whether the Festival Office could be told that in the interests both of accuracy and the preservation of decent English it should take more care over the wording of its advertisements in foreign journals? Is the right hon. Gentleman


aware, for instance, that "Life" the other day committed this atrocity in a Festival advertisement:
You will find that devaluation has made (Britain a thrifty land in which to vacation"?

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, I cannot in any way conceive what this has to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL)

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, in order to render subject to Parliamentary control statutory instruments presented to Parliament which are neither subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament nor required to be approved or confirmed by Parliament.
As hon. Members who have their Order Paper will see, the title "Statutory Instruments (Parliamentary Control)" adequately describes the purpose of the Bill which I seek leave to introduce. I believe that in 1946 the Select Committee on Procedure considered, amongst other things, the position with regard to delegated legislation and recommended that there should be a full examination, I think by the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That I cannot achieve today, but I mention it in passing.
Every one of us realises that a measure of delegated legislation is necessary. It has been going on for at least 400 years and different Parliaments, different Governments, have adopted different procedures with regard to delegated legislation, with the result that the whole position is in a state of great confusion. The object of my Bill is to diminish that confusion to a small extent. I am not attempting to deal with the whole subject, because I think that is a matter which would have to be handled by a Government with the full responsibility of government.
I am merely trying to provide that when an order is presented to Parliament, Parliament shall be entitled to discuss it. At present a number so introduced are not debatable, which I think is quite absurd. Every one of us realises that the

essential method of the Fascists, Nazis and Communists is legislation by decree. I think legislation by decree is an evil thing unless there is some Parliamentary control over the decree. As a matter of fact, nearly half the orders which are published by the Stationery Office are not debatable.
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council was largely responsible—I was not in the House at the time—for the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 which, I frankly recognise, improved the position by comparison with that existing under the Act which it replaced—the Act of 1893, although for the moment I have forgotten its Title. But the position remains unsatisfactory. I have had an interesting experience in the last 10 years in that I have looked at—I will not say studied—every Statutory Instrument which has been published —somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000. I have, therefore, acquired a certain amount of knowledge and experience about them. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the activities during the wartime Parliament of the group with which I was then connected—and with which I am still connected—to try to improve the position. It has been improved in many ways, but it still remains somewhat unsatisfactory.
I want to quote to the House one or two examples. They are all selected from the last few weeks. The other day an order was published controlling the export of goods—a very important matter: and on that we cannot have a Prayer. But just about the same time an order was published about the control of exchange payments. Both orders fall in the same category, yet we can have a Prayer about the latter order. An order was published about teachers' superannuation rules. It merely affects their conditions of service, and about that we cannot have a Prayer. Yet the order on Fire Services (Ranks and Conditions of Service) is prayable—but both belong to orders dealing with people's remuneration. I turn to the topical subject of quilts, the price of which is controlled by Order No. 89, which I find is prayable. But the price of commodities depends largely upon the remuneration of those who produce them, and when I turn to a Wages Council Order I find that that cannot be discussed in the House. This shows complete inconsistency.
Tomorrow we are to discuss an order about the Transfer of Functions of Ministries of the Crown. That is an important constitutional issue, for we are re-arranging the duties of certain Ministers, and that order is prayable. The other day, however, an Order in Council was approved by His Majesty, no doubt on the initiative of the Air Ministry, which changes the composition of the Air Council. The composition of the Air Council—and I am not talking of the personnel—may be a matter of substantial constitutional significance, but we can do nothing about it. We can discuss the transfer of functions of the Ministry of Health, but we cannot discuss the Air Council.
If I happened to be an Ulster man, I could pray about the stopping of a highway at Kirkistown. That is prayable. But if I want to pray about stopping a highway in Hertfordshire, I cannot do so, because that is in England. The position is in a state of absolute and complete confusion. The Minister of Transport does not want people to travel over the Mill-wall Clock Spring Bridge at more than five miles per hour. That may be a very good thing, and we can pray about that. If he wants to stop up a highway in Glamorganshire we cannot pray about it. When he wants to prescribe a London street and turn it into a one-way street, we can have a Prayer about that. The whole thing is so inconsistent and absurd that the time has come for the question to be investigated. My Bill merely seeks to cover one small part—the least controversial part—namely, that when an order is formally laid on the Table we should be entitled to take Parliamentary action by having a Prayer about it.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I want to oppose this Bill. It is very easy for the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), to produce certain instances and, by reference to them, to attempt to justify a sweeping Measure of this kind. May I concede to him at once that there are border-line cases in which it may be desirable that his Bill should apply. But it is impossible to come to a conclusion about his Bill on the speech he has made today.
As every hon. Member knows, there are four categories of Statutory Instruments. There are those which are subject to an affirmative Resolution: there are

those which are subject to a negative Resolution: there are those which have to be laid before the House: and there is a fourth category which does not have to be laid before the House. What the hon. Member's Bill proposes by a quite haphazard, hit-or-miss method, is to take Orders out of the third category, to abolish it, and to include them in the second category. His Bill does nothing with the fourth category nor does it affect the position of the first two categories.
Why have we these categories at all, and why have we the proposal to abolish the third category? We have these categories, as every hon. Member knows perfectly well, because there are Statutory Instruments of varying degrees of importance. It may be desirable in one case to make the order subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House before it comes into operation, while in another case the order may be of such little significance that there is no point even in laying it before Parliament at all.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Who decides?

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Parliament itself decides. The difference between a Parliamentary decision by the present method and a Parliamentary decision by the method proposed by the hon. Member for Croydon, East, is this: that Parliament now decides into which category a Statutory Instrument shall fall when it is considering the Bill which authorises that Statutory Instrument. In other words, Parliament now considers each individual case on its merits by debate in this House, when the House is fully seized of all the facts which relate to the Statutory Instrument.
What the hon. Member for Croydon, East, proposes is not that at all. What he proposes is a "steam-rollering" by which he says that every single Statutory Instrument which Parliament in its wisdom has decided in the past should be subject to one form of procedure or another, shall, if it falls within a particular category of procedure—the third category—be removed from that category altogether and come within the second category. That is an utterly unreasonable proposal.
May I give two examples of the effect the hon. Member's proposal would have? I shall give cases of Statutory Instruments which fall within the third category which


he seeks to abolish—instruments which he proposes should be subject to a negative Resolution. First, there are orders made under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1932, declaring that a foreign Government has ratified a load-line Convention—a purely explanatory provision. It would be absurd and thoroughly nugatory to make that subject to a negative Resolution of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because if the House passes a negative Resolution it seeks to make of no force a declaration by a foreign Government. That is why. It ought to be perfectly obvious to hon. Members.
The next instance is that of a declaration that there is an area infected with foot and mouth disease. From that certain automatic statutory results follow, but the declaration, the order declaring that foot and mouth disease exists in a certain area, cannot be altered by a negative Resolution of this House. It would be ridiculous if it could be. It is not appropriate that the House should be responsible for deciding whether foot and mouth disease has broken out in a place.
There was an earlier Bill brought forward in 1949 by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). That Bill, more moderately, provided for large categories of exceptions. The hon. Member for Croydon, East has no patience

with categories of exceptions. He would ride rough-shod over everything. The diffe5rence between the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone and the Bill of the hon. Member for Croydon, East is the difference between the hon. Member for St. Marylebone and the hon. Member for Croydon, East. We are here, in fact, on the lunatic fringe of the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] I am glad to have the approbation of so many hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

The third category of orders can already be subject to investigation by Questions to Ministers. It can be subject to investigation on Motions for the Adjournment. The difference is, of course, that those means of inquiry in the House are not exempted business. I suggest that this Measure is sought to be brought before the House in order to increase the amount of exempted business which can be dealt with in the House. [Laughter.] Certainly. To increase exempted business in cases like these that I have quoted is quite unnecessary. It is to impose on Parliament business which it is quite unnecessary to impose on Parliament. It is merely throwing a spanner into the works.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.

The House divided: Ayes, 192: Noes, 248.

Division No. 39.]
AYES
[3.44 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Grimston, Hon J (St. Albans)


Amery, J. (Preston, N.)
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, R V (Westbury)


Amory, D. Heathcoal (Tiverion)
Crowder, Capt. John F E. (Finchley)
Harden, J. R. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, F. P. (Rulslip—Northwood)
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Cundiff, F. W.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Air -Codre. A. V. (Maeclasfield)


Banks, Col. C.
Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Hay, John


Baxter, A. B.
de Chair, S.
Heald, L. F.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
De la Bére, R.
Heath, E. R.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Deedes, W. F.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Donner, P. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Birch, Nigel
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bower, N.
Drayson, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Drewe, C.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Hollis, M. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J G
Dunglass, Lord
Hope, Lord J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Duthie W. S.
Hopkinson, H L. D'A


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Erroll, F. J.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Hudson, W. R (Hull. N.)


Butoher, H. W.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Hurd, A. R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Gammans, L. D.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Ch[...]ehill, Rt. Hon. W S
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Hutchison, Col. J. R. H (Scotstoun)


Clyde, J. L.
Gridley, Sir A.
Hyde, Lt.-Col H. M


Conant, Maj. R. J E
Grimond, J
Hylton-Foster. H B




Jeffreys, General Sir G
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Snadden, W McN.


Jennings, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Mott-Radolyffe, C. E
Spens, Sir P (Kensington, S.)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W
Nabarro, G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)


Kaberry, D
Nicholls, H.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Keeling, E. H.
Nicholson, G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Noble, Comdr. A. H P
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Storey, S.


Langford-Holt, J.
Nutting, Anthony
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Oakshott, H. D
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Odey, G. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Lindsay, Martin
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Summers, G. S.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Teevan, L. T.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)


Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S. W.)
Pato, Brig. C. H. M
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Law, A. R. W.
Pickthorn, K.
Turton, R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Vane, W. M. F.


MoAtdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J K.


MeCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Raiket, H. V.
Vosper, D. F.


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Rayner, Brig. R
Wade, D. W.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


McKibbin, A.
Ronton, D. L. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)




Watkinson, H.


Maclean, F. H. R.
Roper, Sir H.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


MacLeod, Iain {Enfield, W.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridga)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wills, G.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marlowe, A. A H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maude, A. E U (Ealing, S.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)
York, C.


Maudling, R.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)



Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molson, A H. E.
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)
Sir Herbert Williams and


Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Mr. C. S. Taylor.




NOES


Aeland, Sir Richard
Crossman, R. H. S
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Albu, A. H.
Collen, Mrs. A
Hale, J. (Rochdale)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Daines, P.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Hall, Rt. Hn. W Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, A. Edward (Sioke, N.)
Hamilton, W W.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Bacon; Miss A
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardman, D. R.


Balfour, A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardy, E. A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Deer, G.
Hargreaves, A


Hartley, P
Delargy, H. J
Harrison, J.


Bonn, Hon A N. Wedgwood
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, Dr. Somervine


Benson, G.
Donnelly, D.
Hayman, F. H.


Beswick, F.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)


Bing, G H C.
Dye, S.
Herbison, Miss M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon J C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hobson, C. R.


Boardman, H
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Booth, A.
Edwarde, W J. (Stepney)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bottomley, A. G
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, H. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fernyhough, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Field, Capt. W. J
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Finch, H. J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Brooks, T J (Normanton)
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Broughton, Dr. A. D D.
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brown, George (Belper)
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, T J. (Ince)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Burton, Miss E.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jay, D. P. T


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Callaghan, James
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S.)


Carmichael, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T N
Jenkins, R. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Chetwynd, G. R
Gilzean, A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Clunie, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Conselt)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S.)


Cocks, F S.
Gooch, E. G.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony W J. (Rossendale)
Keenan, W.


Collindridge, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon Arthur (Wakefield)
Kenyon, C.


Cook, T. F.
Grenfell, D. R
Key, Rt. Hon C W


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Grey, C F.
Kinghorn, Sqn Ldr. E


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Peckham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Kirkwood, Rt Hon D


Craddock, George (Bradford. S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Lianelly)
Lee, F. (Newton)


Crawley, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Crosland. C A. R
Gunter. R J
Lewis, A W J (West Ham N.)







Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Parker, J.
Stross, Dr. B


Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Paton, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


McAllister, G.
Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G O.


MacCott, J. E.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


McGhee, H. G.
Poole, Cecil
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McGovern, J.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


McInnes, J.
Porter, G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McKay, J (Wallsand)
Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, I.O. (Wrekin)


McLeavy, F.
Pryde, D. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Pursey, Comdr. H
Thurtle, Ernest


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rankin, J.
Timmons, J.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rees, Mrs. D.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reeves, J.
Tomney, F


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Ungoed-Thomas, A L


Manual, A. C.
Reid, W (Camlachie)
Usborne, Henry


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A
Rhodes, H.
Vernon, Maj. W F


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R
Viant, S. P.


Messer, F.
Robens, A.
Wallace, H. W


Middleton, Mrs. L
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Webb, Rt. Hon M.(Bradford, C.)


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, P. L. (Favsrsham)


Mitchison, G. R
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Moeran, E W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
West, D. G.


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C.
Wheatley. Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.>




White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shackleton, E. A. A
Whileley, Rt. Hon. W


Morley, R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mort, D. L.
Simmons, C. J
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Moyle, A.
Slater, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mulley, F. W
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Murray, J. D
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Nally, W
Snow, J. W.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Neal, H
Sorensen, R. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Oldfield, W. H
Steele, T.



Padley, W. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Mr. Proctor and Mr. Monslow.


Pannell, T. C.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R (Vauxhall)



Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.54 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The main and the simple object of this Bill is to make it clear that the Supplies and Services Acts and the Defence Regulations which are in force under those Acts can be used for the purposes set out in Clause 1 of this Bill; that is to say, for building up our defences and so helping to preserve world peace and security. I should like to make it abundantly clear at the beginning that this Bill does not enable the Government to make any new Defence Regulations. This can apply only to regulations which already exist.
When in October last I introduced the Motions continuing the main emergency powers for a period of one year, I said that at the appropriate time Parliament would have to consider the field within which those powers should be made permanent, and the Gracious Speech at the opening of the present Session referred to the Government's intention to introduce legislation on this subject. This Bill does not affect that. Permanent legislation would deal with long-term economic controls, whereas this Bill is concerned primarily, though not exclusively, with temporary powers regarding requisitioning and similar emergency procedures.
I say at once that Clause 1 really does little more than to remove doubts. The Supplies and Services Acts are drawn in wide terms, and we are not therefore in any great legal difficulty over the use of these powers, although in particular cases, to which I shall refer in a minute, we feel that some clarification is desirable. The reason why we are coming to Parliament with this Bill is that defence and rearmament were not among the main purposes contemplated by Parliament when the Supplies and Services Acts of 1945 and 1947 were passed, and now that they are coming more and more into the centre of the picture we feel it right that they should be expressly sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. We do that because, as the House well knows, we are a very, very

constitutional Government. We have always been meticulously and scrupulously careful and respectful about the rights of Parliament and the principles of our great constitution.
This is in line with what we have done on previous occasions. For example, when the Act of 1945 was passed it contained a pretty wide purpose in Section 1 (1, a), namely, to secure a sufficiency of supplies and services essential to the well-being of the community. It was arguable that those words would cover anything needed for defence purposes, but during the passage of that Act the Government promised that property which had been requisitioned by the Service Departments would not be retained under that Act unless the property were turned over to essential economic purposes, otherwise it would be given up before the end of the two years' period allowed by the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.
That was an indication that the Government did not intend to use the requisitioning regulations for purely military purposes. Accordingly, two years later, when it was found that, owing to the unsettled international situation, the defence services could not be allowed to run down any further, we did not think it right to rely on the wide words of the Supplies and Services Act, but we came back to Parliament with a new Measure—the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948, which enabled Service Departments to retain requisitioned property.
Then in the economic sphere, when balance of payments difficulties became acute in the summer of 1947 and more drastic controls had to be imposed for the purpose of increasing exports and economies on imports, we thought it desirable, to be on the safe side, to pass the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947. I well remember the day upon which that Bill came up for Second Reading. The Opposition were in a state of the most amazing suspicion. The Leader of the Opposition was in that state, and they denounced us as if they thought that at least that was the beginning of the social revolution beside which the socialisation of iron and steel was relatively unimportant. They were mistaken about that. We tried to mitigate the apprehensions of the Opposition, although I must admit that the hon.
Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman), did his best to stimulate all the fears of the Opposition, while I was attempting to allay them, and I think shat, in the light of experience, I was right and my hon. Friend was perhaps wrong.
We were suspected of all sorts of dark designs at the time, but the truth was that we were only being respectable once again. We were protecting the Constitution and the rights of Parliament, and we were merely seeking Parliamentary endorsement of the use of economic control powers for purposes which seemed to us to go rather beyond the transitional matters contemplated in 1945. Now, once again matters have taken a different turn, and we find ourselves compelled to harness our economy, to a greater extent than was ever contemplated in peacetime, to the task of re-armament. We all wish that was not necessary.
This may involve not only the re-imposition of economic controls which had lapsed, but also the direct use by the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply of powers to requisition land and buildings and to do work on land. These latter powers are not covered by the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1948, which only dealt with the retention of land already requisitioned or works already executed and did not give powers to carry out new requisitioning and works.
Everybody recognises that these powers may have to be used in order to speed up the defence programme and probably, if we were prepared to adapt our interpretation of the law a little, we could do nearly everything needed under the existing provisions of the Supplies and Services Acts. But, as I have said, we feel that the right course is to obtain express Parliamentary sanction, and not to depend on Acts of Parliament which were primarily directed at other matters. Moreover, there are one or two questions about which we have felt some legal difficulty. In connection with the Korean operations, the Minister of Transport has been able to charter all the ships he required but, if difficulties had arisen, we should have had to consider whether it was permissible to requisition ships for such purposes.
The language of the 1945 and 1947 Acts may well be wide enough to cover the general building up of the defence services, on the ground that such services are
essential to the well-being of the community.
As provided by Section 1 (1, a) of the 1945 Act, or that the use of the "resources of the community" for this purpose is "calculated to serve the interests of the community" as provided by Section 1 (1, c) of the 1947 Act. But when it comes to the use of requisitioning powers for a specific military operation on the other side of the world, which has no connection with our general economic arrangements, the language becomes somewhat strained.
That is one difficulty, and the other is that we may have to use these powers to prevent supplies which might be of vital importance to so-called Communist countries, being sent to those countries. If we need the supplies urgently ourselves, there is no great difficulty, but if the primary motive is to deny the supplies to the other country rather than to secure them for ourselves, it can hardly fall within the purposes of the existing Acts. That matter is expressly covered by paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1) of the Bill.
Before leaving Clause 1, I may perhaps say a word about subsection (2). We do not regard this provision as strictly necessary, but we have put it in to allay the anxieties felt, particularly by our Liberal colleagues, whose point of view in this matter we fully appreciate. We have never thought it possible to use such Defence Regulations as Defence Regulation 55 to prohibit the publication of a newspaper whose views might be obnoxious to one side or the other of the House, or to discriminate against such a newspaper by cutting short their supplies of newsprint.
During the war there were specific Defence Regulations which empowered the Government to suppress newspapers, and in that field I had a modest experience at the Home Office. But they were among the 84 Defence Regulations whose revocation I was able to announce to the House on 9th May, 1945, on the morrow of victory in Europe. We do not really feel, therefore, that the Press


need any protection in this Bill. However, we accepted an amendment when the Supplies and Services (Extended Purposes) Act, 1947, was being debated, in terms similar to subsection (2) of Clause 1, of this Bill, and for that reason we have inserted the same provision in this Bill, so that the House can feel that we are on the safe side on a matter to which, I know, the House would attach importance.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Some of us feel a little uneasy about this Clause. Suppose a firm is engaged on important contracts for defence and because of differences with their men they refuse to carry out the contracts, would the Government be prepared to take action immediately in the interests of the nation's defence in cases of that kind?

Mr. Morrison: That is a somewhat hypothetical question.

Mr. Kirkwood: No, Craven Bros.

Mr. Morrison: Maybe, but I do not want to indulge in any judgment of a situation where we are not at the moment called upon to act in this respect, and, therefore, while I think that the powers under the Bill may conceivably be usable on such an occasion—that may be so, but perhaps that might be further examined in Committee—I should not like to express a view as to what the Government would do in the particular circumstances to which my hon. Friend has referred.
I now come to Clause 2 which is the only other substantive provision of the Bill, At first sight it may seem to the House that this detailed Clause providing for the stopping up of highways for defence purposes has not very much connection with the wide matters covered by Clause 1. The connection, however, is quite a simple one. When we decided that a Bill was desirable to justify the use of existing Defence Regulations for defence purposes, we considered with some care whether any of the Defence Regulations which had been revoked would be required again in the circumstances of today. We came to the conclusion that there was one such Regulation, the old Defence Regulation 16 which was originally available for the

purpose of closing roads near defence establishments and factories but can now only be used for opencast coal working and the construction of generating stations.
During the war this Regulation was an essential part of the machinery for rapid expansion of defence facilities, especially airfields. It was complementary to the requisitioning powers and the powers to do work on land under Defence Regulations 50 and 51, which still remain in full force. Without this power, the extension of an airfield may be held up for six or even nine months if the ordinary peacetime procedure for stopping up highways, under the Highways Act, 1835, or Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is gone through. This is a serious matter, and we simply cannot afford avoidable delay in matters of this kind. Already there have been some cases, in which the extension of runways at air-fields required for essential operational purposes has been delayed because of the necessity for lengthy proceedings for stopping up a road passing over or near the proposed extension.
We do not like bringing this power back in peace-time, and we have done our best to make the Clause as acceptable as possible. In the first place, the power is exercisable by the Minister of Transport, instead of by the Service Departments, which is by agreement. The Minister can only exercise the power if, he is satisfied that it is urgently necessary for defence purposes, and he has to give 21 days' notice before making the order. This should be a sufficient period for enabling local authorities and others to inform the Minister of any serious objections to his proposal and for him to consider them, but of course it does not give, and I do not see how we can do it, time for a formal inquiry. The power is only a temporary power, and it will come to an end when the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, expires; in fact, it has the status of a Defence Regulation.
The second part of the Clause provides machinery, which was not in the Defence Regulation, for the permanent stopping up of a highway which has already been temporarily stopped up, and for the provision of a permanent alternative route as necessary. The procedure is that laid down by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which is applied for the purposes of this part of the Clause and gives


protection for the interests of the public and of statutory undertakers. We anticipate that in cases where it is clear that the stopping up will be permanent—where a permanent concrete runway has been built over the old road, for example—the Minister of Transport will apply the Town and Country Planning Act code of procedure, which will enable the Minister to provide permanent alternative facilities, including an alternative highway, at the expense of the Service or other Department responsible for the work necessitating the closure of the road.
I do not think I need say anything much about the remaining provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 enables it to be extended to the Colonies and other territories to which the Supplies and Services Acts already extend. The procedure is by Order in Council, as in the earlier Acts.
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained on 15th February in the Defence debate, there will have to be requisitioning of land and buildings not only for defence production but also for the accommodation and storage requirements of the Service and Civil Departments. This means that more use will have to made than recently of Defence Regulations 50, 51 and 85. Moreover, although the Under-Secretary of State for War indicated in the House on 20th November, 1947, that it was then hoped that it would not be necessary to use Defence Regulation 52 to obtain training rights over new areas, in the new situation which has now arisen it will be necessary to make some use of the Regulation in respect of new areas. Where the requisitioning of land is contemplated, the civilian authorities concerned are consulted. These consultations will continue, though we shall have to ensure that the machinery of consultation acts sufficiently speedily in urgent cases.
This is a short and modest Bill and the House will no doubt give it a Second Reading without too long a delay. Because we still have powers under Defence Regulations which we have had to retain in order to deal with our postwar economic problems, we do not need any sweeping new powers in this Bill, which shows how wise we were to keep the Supplies and Services Act going for

five years and to make it renewable, although there was some controversy about it at the time. We are satisfied that if existing powers can be used for those new purposes, and if the power to close roads near defence establishments is restored, we shall possess the powers we need at the present moment to carry out our defence programme and play our part in the maintenance of world peace and security. That, shortly stated, is the case for the Bill, and I am hoping with confidence that the House will give it a Second Reading.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: The right hon. Gentleman has introduced this relatively small Measure in a non-controversial way, and I hope to follow his example so far as I am able. In the Gracious Speech last autumn, the Government announced in a resounding phrase their intention to introduce legislation to regulate, subject of course to Parliamentary safeguards, such as they were, production, distribution and consumption; and to control prices and all the rest of it. The previous week the Lord President had announced in the House that at the appropriate time it would be right for Parliament to face up to introducing permanent legislation.
We had expected by now that we should have heard something about these plans so grandiloquently announced last autumn, but there is no sign in this Bill of such a scheme, and although I listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman he did not give any hint of his intentions. This Bill has nothing to do with such proposals. It is designed to allow Defence Regulations that were introduced by the Conservatives and the Coalition Governments once more to be used for their original purposes, which many of us think is their only proper purpose, that of defence both at home and overseas. One is reminded, in passing, how often the wheel of life turns the full circle.
We remain strongly opposed in peacetime to the whole system by which the Government act by means of regulations of this sort and orders made under them. It is only for the defence of the country that they can be justified in our view. While we are not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, as it is for defence purposes, I wish to make it crystal clear that we do not abate the opposition


we have expressed—the opposition my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) expressed in regard to the 1947 Act and speakers in the debate which took place on the Gracious Speech last autumn—to any permanent extension of these powers over the economic life of the country. We again emphasise, what is surely a truism, that in a Parliamentary democracy the Government should proceed by specific Acts of Parliament and not by regulations, and that the reverse should be and is repugnant to real liberty-loving peoples everywhere. Though we are not today opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, there are one or two Amendments which we think necessary and which we shall press during the Committee stage.
I must comment very briefly on the chaotic state into which legislation on all these Defence Regulations has been plunged. I shall not try to state the legal position; I am not qualified to do so and some of my hon. Friends will deal with it later. But I must say that these Defence Regulations, introduced in 1939 and 1940 and due to expire in 1946, have been kept alive by the present Government in a whole plethora of further Acts of Parliament to such an extent that the jungle is so thick that any non-legal person is at his wits' end to find his way through it all.
The important Acts were those of 1945 and 1947. The 1945 Act terminated a great many of the defence purposes for which those Regulations had originally been made, and substituted demobilisation and resettlement. Then came 1947. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the economic crisis into which this country was then plunged. We on this side of the House well remember that that was the time when the baleful star of the Minister of Town and Country Planning was in the ascendant over our economic and financial affairs. We regard that as one of the reasons why those unhappy times were experienced by this country.
We opposed, and still oppose, the use of these Defence Regulations permanently in the life of the community for such economic purposes. In those days the Government had a large majority and were able easily to impose their wishes in the House. Since then we have added some weight to our numbers on this side of the House. I might even go so far as

to say that I myself returned from a short rustication in the country. The result was soon noticed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—not my own return of course, but the added weight of my hon. Friends, for I would remind the House that one of the first actions which this Government took after the General Election, under strong pressure from our side of the House, was to relinquish Regulation 58A and the direction and control of labour which was then operating in this country under it. I mention that because I shall have more to say on that point later in my remarks.
Finally, the whole conglomoration of Acts under which these Regulations are operated is now being kept alive from year to year. Under the original intentions of the Government they should have expired in 1950, and last autumn we allowed them to proceed for one more year. But I would remind the House of what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said in the debate on that occasion. He said:
Even so, all this corpus has to he looked at and has to be pruned down, and we serve notice that in our view this has to he done within the next 12 months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2518.]
I gather that there are more than 100 of these Defence Regulations, ranging from the most important to the very trivial. If this Bill is passed there will then be nine different purposes for which these Regulations can be used, and I leave to the imagination of the more arithmetically minded Members of the House the numbers, combinations and permutations of uses of them which are possible.
To turn to the Clauses of the Bill, there are one or two points at least on which we shall require satisfaction in Committee. It is stated, in Clause 1 (1):
The purposes specified in subsection (1) of section one of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, shall be deemed to include, and always to have included, the purposes.…
Those purposes are then stated. Here we have the retrospective action which this Government seem to be so fond of bringing into their legislation, and which we on this side of the House at all events dislike. Why have they brought in this


retrospective provision? The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, I must say, is most ingenuous. It says:
The main purpose of this Bill is to make it clear that the Defence Regulations … can be used…
not to give powers so that they can be used but "to make it clear" that they can be used.
It would appear from those words that some Ministers have in fact been using powers which they should not have been using, and that it is here proposed to absolve them in respect of their nefarious actions. That point needs looking into a little further. I am emboldened to say that because of the words which the Lord President of the Council himself used in the 1947 Debate, on the Second Reading of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. Speaking from that Box, he must, I think—and I can only say "I think" as I was not here at the time—have used them with that air of rectitude and innocence which he can adopt with such skill at times. He used the following very remarkable words in relation to this very point. He was saying that on no account should Ministers overstep their powers in this way and what a bad thing it would be. His words were:
We do not want Ministers to stretch the meaning of the law in the framing and administration of Defence Regulations.
He went on to say that it would be unconstitutional—and I can almost hear him saying it—that it would be
undesirable and thoroughly objectionable. Therefore, because of legal doubt, because we wanted Ministers to be able to say to themselves all the time, 'I am acting within the law,'…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th August. 1947; Vol. 441, c. 1796.]
they proceeded with that Measure.
It now appears— it must appear from the fact that the Government want a retrospective cover for their actions—that some Ministers have been acting unconstitutionally, undesirably and indeed thoroughly objectionably. We shall require to know during the Committee Stage, if those words are to be left in the Bill, what Ministers have been behaving in this very odd way, whether the right hon. Gentleman has had them on the carpet and why this white sheet is required. That is an important point on

which we hope we shall receive full satisfaction, and which we shall indeed seek to probe to the full when we reach the Committee Stage.
To turn to page 2 of the Bill we welcome, as the right hon. Gentleman has said the whole House would welcome, Clause 2 (2), which states:
Nothing in the said Act or in this section shall be held to authorise the suppression or suspension of any newspaper, periodical, book or other publication.
In my own interests I naturally welcome that provision, and I also welcome it in the interests of us all. I do not think that we wish to see these Defence Regulations used for purposes of that kind in a free country such as this. I welcome it all the more because we do find right hon. Gentlemen opposite expressing themselves from time to time fairly forcibly about some sections of the Press. We are glad to learn that right hon. Gentlemen do not wish to take the matter further.
I emphasise that aspect because we shall wish to introduce a third subsection relating to a similar matter, to provide that nothing in the said Act or the Clause shall be held to authorise the Government to re-impose Defence Regulation 58A, which provides for the direction of the control of labour. We wish that power to be taken out of Defence Regulations. Speaking on that very point, the Minister of Labour, in his speech in the Defence debate last week, said:
I have discussed this matter already with the representatives of the trade unions and of the employers, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be premature to reach a decision about the direction of labour,…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 730–1.]
That means to say that it is not ruled out altogether. Indeed, in the circumstances in which we live, he would be a rash man who said that it was.
On this side of the House, and I believe throughout the whole House, the direction and control of labour in peace-time are thoroughly disliked. If the Government do at any time think that it is absolutely necessary to adopt such powers, they should come down to the House and present a specific and limited Bill to that end. The Bill could be discussed on Second Reading, examined in Committee and amended if necessary, and rejected or adopted by Parliament in the light of the situation then existing. We do not


approve of a procedure whereby Regulation 58A for the control of labour may be reintroduced by a signature given in a back room in the Ministry of Labour. It should be done with full consultation and in the full light of Parliamentary examination.
In this attitude we are fortified by pledges which were given during the debate on the Gracious Speech, both by the Lord Chancellor in another place and by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The Minister gave a pledge, not exactly corresponding to what I have said but very similar. I think his words were to the effect that any Bill to introduce emergency legislation would not contain the power to direct labour. I hope that the Government will be able to accept in Committee an Amendment which I believe is in line with these promises. We attach the greatest possible importance to this matter.
Now may I comment for one moment upon Clause 2? This seems to me to contain a sensible procedure. In part it adopts the Town and Country Planning procedure. For the rest of it, we should be churlish if we criticised the desire of the Government. We all understand that they wish to have these powers. There may well be some Committee points on which we should like elucidation or further discussion. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will be raising these points in the debate or during the Committee stage. I have no comment to make on the substance of these proposals except that I wonder whether it would be possible to stretch the 21-day procedure to a little longer in cases where it was not urgently necessary to get on with this work in a great hurry.
This is a little Bill. I emphasise that it is not a great Measure, but in so far as it is necessary for the proper defence of our way of life and for the peace of the world we certainly do not oppose it here. None the less, I emphasise that we remain quite unrepentant in our vigorous resistance to the whole system by which this country's economic life might be permanently regulated in this way. Our action on this occasion must not in any way be regarded as altering our attitude to any permanent legislation which the Government may at some later stage introduce on the subject.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) in his somewhat wistful regret that this was not made the occasion for a more ambitious Measure. I heard him, as I have heard other hon. Members on other occasions, refer to his opposition and that of the party of which he is a member to government by regulation. I have done so with a certain amount of scepticism. The party opposite enjoyed a very long period of power between the two wars. Its use of that power we have often discussed on its merits in this House, and I do not propose to discuss it again on this little Measure, but it certainly was not a period in which government by regulation grew conspicuously less.
If the electorate were ever sufficiently unwise to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity to put into practice the doctrines that have been formulated this afternoon, I very much doubt whether the result would be any different. Having regard to the perspicacity and wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman, I take it that he does not altogether share some of the more optimistic forecasts of his friends about the outcome of a General Election.

Mr. McCorquodale: The hon. Gentleman must not assume anything of the sort. We are only waiting for the chance.

Mr. Wells: The only conclusion I can draw is that the right hon. Gentleman is following the unhappy example of many leaders of his party in saying one thing when in opposition and something quite different when in office.
This Measure is a useful extension and clarification of the Supplies and Services Acts, which one might call the principal Acts. I listened with a little astonishment—if I may again refer to the very moderate and pleasant speech of the right hon. Gentleman—to some of his comments on the so-called retrospective sentence in Clause 1. It suggested to me that it might have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that military operations had been proceeding for some months in another part of the world. I feel sure that he would not wish, where actions may have been taken in order to expedite the conduct of those operations and might not have been within the strict


letter of the law, to do anything to embarrass either the conduct of those operations or those who have acted in good faith in forwarding such purposes. We had better wait and see what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon and learned Friends have to say when we deal with the matter in Committee or elsewhere.
The main point on which I wish to address the House was rather on subsection (1, b) of Clause I which relates to preventing supplies or services being disposed of
in a manner prejudicial to the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions or any such territory as aforesaid or to peace and security in any part of the world or to any such measures as aforesaid.
That is, no doubt, a very proper and necessary provision to make, but one must confess that its terms are extremely wide. They are terms whose wisdom when applied to an immediate pre-war situation one must appreciate. Indeed, it might have been better if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—perhaps it passed through the minds of some of them when they read the Clause—had thought of some similar provisions in the months of 1939 before war broke out. The stockpiling of Nazi Germany might have been impeded to an appreciable extent.
I should like to obtain from the Government a firm assurance that the Clause will be used only to prevent obvious and substantial stock-piling on the part of potential enemies and that it will not be used as an instrument of policy to attempt to coerce countries with whose actions we may not be in present agreement. It would be fatal to yield to any temptation or to pressure, from whatever quarter it might come, to withhold supplies in any ordinary economic quantities and for ordinary economic purposes from areas simply because they are likely to be affected by Communism or to come under Communist control.
The long-term weapon against Communism is only in part military. One of the best weapons against Communism is to raise the standard of living in the countries which are prone to be influenced by Communist policy. This is not a proper occasion on which to raise what might be a kind of Foreign Affairs Debate on a side-wind—

Mr. Pickthorn: It is much easier to sail, on, actually.

Mr. Wells: I did not hear the hon. Member's interjection.

Mr. Pickthom: I was just giving the hon. Gentleman the technical information that a side-wind is actually much easier to sail on.

Mr. Wells: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. No doubt his views about side-winds will be communicated to the Admiralty.

Mr. Pickthom: They have taken to steam.

Mr. Wells: The point I have made is that on which I should like an assurance. I welcome the Bill as a sign that the Government are preparing in good time for any emergency which may arise, and I believe that this Measure is one of those best calculated to prevent such an emergency from becoming a reality.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the comparatively few references which the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) made to the Bill it was not particularly apparent whether he was for or against it. He preferred to succumb to the temptation to which his hon. Friends are always so susceptible and indulged in a disquisition on what I believe are generally described as "the years between the wars."
In so far as I may follow him in his suggestion that my hon. and right hon. Friends are not sincere in their attack on Government by regulation by reason of the fact that a lot of regulations were made between the wars, may I invite his attention to the fact that at no time during the years between the wars was the power of delegated legislation used—or should I say "abused"?—to the extent of carrying out major measures such as the direction of labour. The hon. Gentleman is rating rather low the intelligence of the House if he thinks the House is particularly impressed by the mere numerical enumeration of statutory instruments which completely disregarded their quality. What my hon. Friends have against His Majesty's Government is the abuse of perfectly necessary delegated powers for the purpose of carrying out major acts of policy which they dare not submit to the House.
The only other observation in which the hon. Member saw fit to indulge which might have some materiality to the Bill—that is a rather charitable interpretation of his speech—was his regret that there was no such provision as Clause 1 (1, b) of the Bill in force immediately preceding the outbreak of war in 1939. I would remind him of two things. First, we are then at peace, and, secondly, there were not transactions during that period comparable with the action of the Government which he supports in permitting a few years ago the sending of Rolls-Royce jet engines to Russia—

Mr. Ellis Smith: What was sent to Germany?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member thinks that jet engines were sent to Germany, he is a certain number of years out.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Do not try to be so funny.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Vickers advertised anti-aircraft guns in Germany before the war?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, at that time there was no question of Government Departments having to permit and license exports. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these subjects is such that he knows he cannot equate action taken or not taken at that time when there was no Government responsibility with action taken on the direct responsibility of a Minister of the Crown.

Mr. L. M. Lever: That is not even a lawyer's quibble.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I prefer such comments as that to the more pretentious but less effective ones he makes on his feet.
I am always more than usually suspicious when the Lord President of the Council proposes a Measure in the mood of jocose reasonableness which he adopted this afternoon. I always suspect, when he adopts that attitude, that he is anxious that the scrutiny of the House shall not be directed in too much detail upon the Measure he is bringing forward,

and, astute Parliamentarian that he is, he generally has extremely good reasons for that. For example, he entirely passed over what was the real purpose of the Bill, on which on the face of the Bill itself there is contradiction. Hon. Members will see in the Explanatory Memorandum, in the words quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), that:
The main purpose of this Bill is to make it clear that the Defence Regulations which are continued in force by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, can be used for the purposes set out in Clause 1 of the Bill…
"To make it clear." However, if one looks at the first words of the Bill, one sees that it is
a Bill to extend, for defence purposes and purposes relating to world peace and security, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945…
Therefore, while the Lord President referred in genial terms to "this little Bill," he did not bother to tell the House whether its real purpose is that stated in the Explanatory Memorandum or that in the opening words of the Bill itself.
It is a matter of some materiality and worth a passing reference by a right hon. Gentleman introducing a Government Measure to make it clear whether this is a request for further powers or merely a Measure brought forward for the avoidance of doubt. The Lord President was perhaps a little casual in his references to the constitutional punctilio of the Government which, in his view, alone made it necessary to bring forward this Bill. If that were the real and the only reason, why is it necessary for the Bill, when it goes to the hands of the skilled draughtsmen who advise His Majesty's Government in this matter, to be laid before this House as a Measure to extend those powers?
Whether inadvertently or not, the Bill accentuates to an undue degree the chaos and confusion with which the whole of this subject is at the moment surrounded. If the Bill becomes law it will enable Defence Regulations, themselves made under Statutes long since repealed, to be used for purposes set out in three separate Acts of Parliament, many of them in many degrees quite inconsistent with each other. For example, we are apparently to retain in force, at the same time as we add these new purposes, the


purpose set out in Section 1 (b) of the 1945 Act to facilitate the demobilisation and resettlement of persons, to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material, and in I (c) to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of industry in time of peace.
The complete confusion which arises from the simultaneous exercise of powers for the purposes of re-armament and of disarmament, of mobilisation and demobilisation, can be quite easily illustrated if one looks at the curious fact that it is possible to authorise under this Bill the insertion of borax into margarine for the purposes of national defence and the keeping of dogs off allotments for the purposes of securing the peace of the world. That is a perfect example of the fantastic width of the powers with which His Majesty's Government are seeking to arm themselves when this Bill is read in conjunction with the other measures which this Government are keeping in force.
The confusion is the worse confounded when it is recalled that the powers which this House is asked today to give to the Government, and all the existing powers to be exercised in connection with those powers, are due to lapse on 10th December of the present year. It seems to me wholly unnecessary, when the Government have announced in tones of a certain degree of truculence that they intend to introduce a Measure giving them permanent powers of delegated legislation with a wide sweep over our economy, and when, if they are to do that, they needs must do it well before December of this year, that they then introduce this Measure now without one hint as to how it will relate to a subsequent Measure which will have to be on the Statute Book before this year is out.
Why was it not possible to add this to the Government Bill now said to be in course of preparation? I use the words "in course of preparation" because I noticed that the Lord President said cautiously that such a Bill "would" make permanent certain powers. Does that mean the Government have had second thoughts about that Measure? Does the introduction of this Bill now, read with that, mean that the Government have abandoned their intention to introduce a permanent Measure? If that is so, it is

a reasonable justification for the presentation of this Bill to the House now. If, however, the Government have not abandoned their intention, if the difficulties which I understand they have had in drafting that Measure have not proved insuperable, it is intolerable that this Bill should be put before the House now, and that perhaps in a few weeks the Government should introduce another Measure covering the whole of this subject.
On the actual Clauses of the Bill there are several things which seem to me difficult to reconcile both with common sense and with what the Lord President said. My right hon. Friend referred to the retrospective provisions. What the House is asked to do is to give a blank authorisation of every excess use of power which may have taken place without this House being informed whether any have, in fact, taken place and, if so, what they are. The hon. Member for Walsall drew our attention to the fact that operations have been proceeding for a good many months. He said, with perfect truth, that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom nor any of us would wish in any degree to handicap the efficient carrying on of those operations.
If that is the reason, what is the objection to Ministers coming to this House and saying, "We have exercised in the heat of the emergency, and to fight a campaign, powers which we have not got, and we ask the House to pass the necessary legislation indemnifying us"? Is there the slightest doubt that this House would give easy and non-controversial assent to confirm any action that a Minister had taken in good faith for the waging of a campaign in a distant theatre of war?

Mr. W. Wells: If the hon. Gentleman really wishes to make this point effectively, he must deal with the argument of the Lord President that in the view of the advisers of the Government previous legislation already provided that the Clauses which are now being enacted were really covered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand it, the effect of that intervention is that this Bill is not needed.

Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either this Bill is needed so that some acts have


to be indemnified, in which case this House should be told what those acts are; or, alternatively existing powers already cover this matter, in which case what is the purpose of this provision? If the hon. Gentleman desires to intervene again, I will happily give way.

Mr. Wells: It may have both meanings. It may be possible to say, "We consider that the previous legislation already provides for this but, for the removal of doubt, we now declare, therefore, that it does." Secondly, there may be the question of actions taken in an emergency since last June.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know in what respect the hon. Gentleman is speaking, whether for His Majesty's Government or for the absent Lord President, when he uses the phrase "We consider." Let me put this to the occupants of the Treasury Bench: can we be told whether or not there are any acts taken by His Majesty's Government which this provision is designed to cover? Are there any Acts in which it is believed that excess of power has been exercised? If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to come forward and tell this House what are the actions, or at any rate some of the actions which this provision is to cover, it is a gross abuse of the rights of this House that we should be asked to give a blank endorsement of acts which, if the hon. Member is right, may never have been committed.
This House would be more than sympathetic to Ministers whose consuming zeal for the national interest and for national defence had caused them to take effective measures in the interests of national defence. Indeed some of us would be happier if we could be informed of any such acts. It is quite another thing to say, "Well they may have, and therefore we will put this in." We must be told before a complete blank cheque, going right back to the beginning of this legislation, is introduced to cover acts taken in excess of powers.
The hon. Member for Walsall knows perfectly well from the study of the Bill, which I am sure he has made, that this provision does not deal merely with the last few months. The words are "deemed always to have been." It goes back to acts long before the Korean campaign began. Therefore it is an astonishingly wide provision for which

even this Government, with its insatiable love for power, has asked. I, for one, would be quite unwilling to assent to any such proposal unless and until at least some of the acts which it is designed to cover are disclosed to this House.
The other issue is clear. Under this Measure the Government will be entitled to introduce direction of labour for the two purposes specified, and will be entitled also to maintain in force, or to make new regulations for these purposes along the lines of Statutory Instrument 1305 of 1940, the Compulsory Arbitration Provisions. It being clear beyond any doubt that that can be done for this purpose, we must surely press for an assurance from whichever right hon. Gentleman—I take it that it will be the Secretary of State for Air—who replies to the debate, as to whether or not it is intended to exercise those powers for either of these purposes. I go further and put the question explicitly: Is it intended to use the powers given by this Bill for the purpose of any further orders under Defence Regulation 58A or Defence Regulation 58AA? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer this, because it is a matter which weighs heavily in the attitude which many of my hon. Friends will adopt towards the Bill.
Then there is the remarkable fact that in the latter part of this Measure the Lord President's genial assurances of his regard for the rights of the House and his interest in constitutional niceties, are shown up in all their naked inaccuracy. If hon. Members look at the Bill, they will see that neither in respect of the statutory instrument made in connection with the stopping up of a highway—that is, I think, under Clause 2 (12)—nor in the still more important provisions of Clause 4, by which it is possible not only to extend this Measure but to amend it in the process of such extension, is any provision made for any control by the House at all.
In the first place, if we are taking away, as we are doing in the highway Clause, the ordinary rights of individuals to go to a public inquiry, it surely would be right to provide some other protection for an individual who in time of peace—which is what we are concerned with now—is aggrieved by the diversion of a highway. It may be a serious matter for


him, and it is wrong to cut out any access to this House. I concede that the need for speed would make the affirmative procedure inappropriate, but what is the objection to the negative procedure?
Clause 4 provides power to extend the Measure to Colonies and to amend it in the process. Again, as I understand it, there is no control whatsoever, and it surely is quite intolerable that we should be asked to give to the Government power not only to extend the Measure to territories to which the House has not decreed that it shall be extended, but to allow the Government to vary it in the process. That is conferring quite excessive powers. What is so extraordinary is that in his speech the Lord President did not put forward any particular necessity for doing so.
I ask the Secretary of State for Air to answer this question: What is the objection to providing that the Bill shall not be extended to a Colony or be amended in such extension without first going through the affirmative procedure? There is no real solid practical objection whatever. It is quite obviously wrong in principle that legislation of this importance should be applied to territories for which the House is responsible, without the House having the slightest opportunity to say Aye or No whether it approves of that course.
It seems that although the Government are trying to do in substance the right thing in trying to use these powers for the purpose of defence—in parenthesis, it is an illuminating illustration of the events of the last five and a half years that it apparently requires an Act of Parliament to enable the Government to use defence regulations for the purpose of national defence—they are trying to use these powers for the major purpose for which they are appropriate. But they are doing it in a way which causes the maximum of confusion, which will leave the whole law in this matter in a state of chaos, which leaves in force provisions which, if ever they had any importance, are now become obsolete, and which are inconsistent with each other and are difficult to follow. The Government are leaving equally in force the inadequate control which the House can exercise over their handling of these

delegated powers. In this respect, as in so many others, the Government are running true to form—even when they try to do the right thing, they always seem to do it in the wrong way.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Albu: Let me at once set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) by saying that I intend to support the Bill. It seemed to me that in their speeches the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) were in some dilemma because of their opposition, in the debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech, to the introduction of permanent legislation for the defence of the standard of living by an amended Supplies and Services Act.
The right hon. Member for Epsom said that he was quite prepared to have this Measure or one of this sort for the purpose of national defence, and implied, of course, that he was not prepared to have it for the defence of the standard of living and for such things as the balancing of our trade. But there is another difficulty into which hon. and right hon. Members opposite have got themselves. The Leader of the Opposition and others on the benches opposite, during the last few weeks, have been saying, "We told you so." They have been claiming that they have all along been in favour of much more stringent measures of re-armament and much earlier measures of enlarged defence expenditure and defence preparations.
Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. Either at the time of the debate on the Address in reply to the King's Speech they were in favour of this sort of Measure, or they were not. If they were in favour of Measures of this sort, without which we could not have proceeded with the re-armament programme and further defence measures of the kind we are now carrying out, then they could not have been in favour of abolishing the existing Act. Therefore, it seems to me that there is some dishonesty in the arguments that are now being used from the other side.
It is rather extraordinary that the Opposition should now have discovered that it is necessary to have these Measures when they did not discover it at that time.
This finally disposes of the arguments which they have used, that they were so much wiser before the event than were the Government and that they themselves would have indulged in a much larger expansion of re-armament and defence expenditure than the Government have done.
This applies equally to the Opposition argument regarding the retrospective Clause of the Bill, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) has pointed out, obviously that Clause has been necessary, not only on account of the fighting that has been taking place, but also because of the preparations the Government have been making over many months for action to be taken by the Defence and Supply Ministers. The type of legislation which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wanted would, I should have thought, have meant a considerable holdup of the very rapid expansion of our defence expenditure and arrangements which we all agree are necessary.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I am interested in the argument of the hon. Member. Which regulations has he in mind which the Government have already used?

Mr. Albu: I do not know, and neither, I think, does the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. It may be that the Government have not used any. I am only saying that I think the Government are certainly right to cover themselves in this way in case the original Act would not have given them the legal power to take certain action, in view of the speed with which they have had to act in the last few months. The procedure which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames wanted would have been much too burdensome.
I turn from the legal aspects of the Bill, with which I am not too well qualified to deal, to some of the ways in which I think the Bill will be operated and the situation in which it is being introduced. Both Opposition parties have had some experience of preparing the country for defence and for war. In each case, unfortunately, war came because our intentions in case of aggression were not clear. This time our intentions are perfectly clear. There is general agreement on both sides of the House and in the country that we should

prevent further expansion of Russian power and of the power of Communist dominated countries.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member says that our intentions in the past were not clear. Did we not give a guarantee for Poland's security and warn Germany that if she marched we would find ourselves compelled to declare war against her? Was that not absolutely clear?

Mr. Albu: We also gave a guarantee to Czechoslovakia. Why should our word have been taken at that time if we had broken it once? It may have been assumed that we would, in fact, have acted, but I still do not believe that our intentions were clear. Certainly, it has come out since that our intentions were not clear to the Germans at that time. But before the Russians understand our intentions, and also that we have no aggressive intention towards them, several years may have elapsed and these powers may have been required for some time. During that period the people of our country will be called on for an extraordinary measure of restraint which they have never had to exercise in peacetime before.
The situation with which we are now faced is a supreme test for a democratic nation. It has never had to be faced in this form before. Such a situation has never existed in such a form.

Mr. Drayson: We never had a Government like this.

Mr. Albu: It is obvious that the hon. Member cannot listen to a serious argument. I thought that in all I had to say I would carry the whole House with me, but if that does not include the hon. Member, I would like to hear his point of view. This is the first time in history that a country has made these preparations when it has been a full democracy and when we have the full practice of universal franchise. Let us not forget that universal franchise in this country is not much more than 20 years old and has never been exercised as it has been since the war. There has never been such a participation in political decision by the people as there is at the present time.
In addition, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour pointed out, we are entering this situation


in a condition of full employment, a condition in which there is no reserve of labour to draw on, nor any body of workers under that compulsion which unemployment normally means. In March, 1940, already six months after the start of the last war, there was still more than a million persons who had not been called into use to participate in the war effort of that time.

Mr. Drayson: rose—

Mr. Albu: No, I cannot give way again as I want to develop my argument and the hon. Member's interruptions are not very helpful to debate.
Both in 1914 and in 1939 the preparations for war themselves provided some incentives to industry in the form of a rearmament boom with high profits and greater employment, and sometimes higher earnings. But today, with our economy fully employed, it can at the very best mean a standstill in the living conditions of our people and may very well mean some lowering of their standard of life. If there is no new incentive at present there are, equally, no sanctions except those which will be freely accepted by our people.
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that no nation has ever before prepared to defend its way of life in such a situation. Therefore, it is vitally necessary that the whole population should be carried along with every step of Government policy, with every regulation that is introduced, which may affect the way of life of the people. Sometimes it seems to me that the Opposition forget these vital facts when they demand an increase of defence expenditure or a more rapid development of policy than the country is prepared to accept—

Mr. Drayson: And a General Election?

Mr. Albu: I did not think I was making a very controversial speech, but apparently the hon. Member does. I should have thought that the speech I was making would have been accepted by him. Apparently he does not accept the fact that there is a great necessity to carry the whole of the people with us in the very serious time through which we shall be passing in the next three or four years. If the people are to accept the tasks that will be laid on them by the

powers given in this Measure, those powers must be utilised to the full to ensure a fair distribution of the burden and as much as possible to lighten the burden wherever it may fall.
I now turn to the sort of actions the Government ought to take under the powers given by this Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) referred to the powers the Government have taken to ensure that materials are not exported to countries which might use them for purposes detrimental to our interests. We have to make sure that we have sufficient control over raw materials in whatever form they are. I heard a most extraordinary story today. A manufacturer of die-cast zinc pulleys found that his sales to the United States were increasing. He could not find out why that was so until he discovered that the pulleys were being bought by a scrap merchant in the United States, who was holding them for speculative purposes because the price of zinc was rising. I think that is a question which might be looked into.
My own view in regard to textiles is that we cannot get on very far without some form of clothes rationing. The shortage of textiles of all types seems not only serious but bound to be of very long duration. From time to time the Opposition, with justification, I think, has drawn attention to the situation that arises from the advertising of electrical and gas appliances and pointed out that while there is a shortage of fuel this cannot be defended. I am inclined to agree, but I think we should also consider putting a ban on the advertising of all products which consume scarce raw materials or labour.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the weight of the defence programme, in the field of supplies, will fall on the engineering industry in its broadest sense. There is one field where there is a great opportunity to extend the output and increase the productivity of the engineering industry and that is in the field of simplification and standardisation. We have had many recent reports, the Lemon Committee, the Anglo-American Committee on Productivity, and, more recently, the Cunliffe Committee which, rightly, came out against giving the British Standards


Institution the power to enforce standards. Nevertheless, such powers might be used under this Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member is going rather beyond the discussion of the Bill and into too great detail.

Mr. Albu: I was only drawing attention to the powers which I thought the Government should exercise under this Measure.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If we did that we might go on for ever, might we not?

Mr. Albu: I am about to come to the end of my speech and I would only add that I hope the Government will not hesitate to use the powers they are taking in this Bill. Perhaps on some more suitable occasion I might give them the benefit of the views which, because of your remarks, Sir, I will not now give. Nevertheless, I hope these powers are not going to be used in a negative sense or a prohibitive way only but also positively for overcoming the interference with normal amenities which the defence programme inevitably entails.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: If I understood part of the argument of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) it ran something like this—that there was a difference between the present situation and the situation before the last war and the war before, because now there is full employment and there is no incentive for people to transfer to other employment. The only alternative to that situation is to give absolute authority to various Ministers in the Government. That is an important admission and that is the important point involved.
Whatever may be said about the introduction of the Bill by the Lord President of the Council, he introduced this Bill as a small one, a trivial Bill. Whatever else this Bill is, it certainly is not a small Bill, or a trivial one; it is a highly important Measure. It may be very necessary. That is another matter, but a Bill like this, apart from the arguments of hon. Members opposite, ought not to be necessary in this House except for the seriousness of the situation. No one agrees, surely, with giving the last powers to the Government, unless the seriousness of the situation demands it. That is the

first argument for this Bill. To introduce a Bill, in those circumstances, as a "trivial" Bill is a gross misleading of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill is a declaratory Bill. So far as he is concerned those powers are already contained in the 1945 and 1947 Acts. Therefore, this one is not necessary. A small subsection is put in the first Clause in order, apparently, to satisfy the Liberals. He says that there was no necessity for any Clause. That was already in the 1947 Act. Was the other part contained in the 1947 Act? That cannot be the explanation of the Bill. The explanation of the Bill is wider power, and hon. Members should ask themselves why the right hon. Gentleman describes that power, in the Title of the Bill, as a declaration, and in the Explanatory Memorandum as an explanation. Those are two important distinctions.
Will these wider powers give extended power to the Government to order the direction of labour in a specific way? That can be done under Clause 1 without any further authority from the House. Are we proposing lightly to transfer that power to the Government without discussion in the House? Has an emergency already arisen? Has such an emergency arisen that it is deemed necessary for these powers to be extended now? Are we satisfied about that?
In Clause 2 very wide and absolute powers are given to the Minister of Transport. He has to determine not only what is to happen, but whether an emergency has arisen, and there is no redress against his decision in any form. Not merely is there no redress against the facts of the situation but there is no means by which his opinion about the situation can be challenged. All the normal judicial procedure of this country is completely excluded. These are wide and absolute powers. They are as absolute as they are wide.
One circumstance alone would, in my view, justify Parliament in giving such absolute powers to the Government and that is if the safety of the Realm were in danger. Apart from that, there should be a complete and detailed check upon all the powers that we hand over to Government Departments and to Ministers of the Crown, whoever they may be. For that reason I say that the House should


examine a Bill of this sort not in the spirit in which it was introduced by the Lord President of the Council, but in view of the gravity of the situation and in view of the seriousness of the terms of the Bill.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would respectfully agree with what has just been said from the Liberal benches, and if it is not improper to offer advice to the Lord President, I feel bound to say that on this kind of topic his pompous manner is better than his facetious manner. This kind of narcissistic self-admiration about his own constitutionalism is not really a fair way to bring a thing of this sort before the House. We are all deeply conscious—

Mr. H. Morrison: Would the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) inform us whether he is now speaking in his pompous or his facetious manner?

Mr. Pickthorn: That will appear, I think, in the course of my remarks. Everybody is quite prepared to debate candidly about the necessity of these provisions, as long as there is candour from both sides. This is a deeply depressing moment in a very dreary history, and the House ought not to be invited to let it pass without serious consideration.
The Lord President of the Council will remember—I do not want to trespass on the copyright of the Father of the House, but it is not everybody in the House who will remember some of the history of this matter—but the Lord President will remember how the party opposite, in 1939, both before the war began and after it had begun, was extremely determined that no powers of this sort should be taken for anything except what could be shown to be directly for the prosecution of the war; and to come to an end the very moment the war was over. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen who have been here for 15 years that that is perfectly fair. Then, of course, they got into office and things became rather different. Then, besides, some of them started off writing books and pamphlets explaining that war legislation had given to the Executive unprecedented power which it might well use later in order to improve the general social conditions of our country. I could

quote speeches and pamphlets from hon. Gentlemen opposite to that effect. I never thought them intellectually very honest myself, but that is what happened.
Then we got through the war and I will not attempt to lecture hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the history of the post-war Statutes, the 1945 Statutes and the later Statutes, and now this one. All I want to say about them is quite simple, and, I think, perfectly fair. It is that surely there has been time now to come to the position where the whole thing should be clarified and codified; when we might be given some opportunity of understanding what powers it is the Government are taking at any moment? I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite: about this particular Bill, how many of them are sure it does not make direction of labour easier, and more likely or how many of them are sure that it makes direction of labour more difficult and less likely? How many would be quite certain which way to bet? I do not believe that a very large proportion of them would be quite certain about that.
I say this is a deeply distressing moment in the history of this legislation because see what it marks. It marks a new start in legislation of the kind which enabled war-time Governments to govern the country and to do what otherwise might have been very difficult things. Under that legislation we won the most complete strategic victory in history and we have not yet got out of it any peace. We have not got peace, but His Majesty's Government proceeded to continue this kind of delegated, indirect and sometimes retrospective legislation on the basis that it was necessary for the transition to peace. Now it is being continued on the basis that it is necessary for the transition, if not to war at least to a war situation, and a situation of complete war preparation. So it is a deeply distressing moment we are at, and Ministers really ought not to be over-jaunty about it.
If I may say one word about the retrospective argument, there is a sort of a sense in which the whole of Clause 1 (1) is retrospective, because it is all referring to and extending regulations that are already in existence. The specifically retrospective words are in line 7, and I ask the Lord President to consider this: we have had now more than one sort of


tentative explanation of why this retrospection is necessary—if the learned Attorney-General could bear to leave the Lord President alone to listen to me just for one moment; we have had this kind of attempted explanation of why this retrospection is necessary from two of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. He was not in the Chamber at the time—I do not blame him for that—but we have had these explanations.
The first was that the preparations for the Expeditionary Force for Korea could not have been legally done without these words. The other explanation was that there were many other things in connection with matters of supply where that might easily have happened. Surely the Lord President ought to consider whether we ought not to be told before this debate is over, some—I do not say necessarily all—of the questions it is hoped to settle by these words in line 7. We ought to be given something more specific than we have had yet before we pass these retrospective words.
Then, I want to ask a question about the subsection for controlling the export of goods to foreign countries. We all understand that that is very difficult, and, with respect, I do not think any good is done by party jeers about the matter. In conditions of peace, of course, all Governments as long as possible do not wish to interfere with the flow of trade. When the war starts and the peace stops, there are a lot of people who say, "Why did you allow scrap to go to Germany," or wherever it may be.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we did not start it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was not starting it. It is extremely difficult to see how the thing is best done, and I should have thought that we ought to have had someone from the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office today to try to indicate what is the sort of thing it is proposed to do under this provision and how it is proposed to do it.
My main objection to this Bill is the objection put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris)—because it is continuing and continuing in an extremely muddled form, a kind of authorising of the Executive beyond what Executives have ever claimed

before, and because the political arguments put up for it are such as to put no end to it.
The political argument put up is—"I, who happen to be in a majority, think that this Government can be trusted to use this thing in the public interest"; or "in a state of full employment where we cannot shift people about by changing wage differentials and so, therefore, we have to direct them, or direct the material so as indirectly to direct the people." Those are the arguments that were put up. If our country accepted this system in 1939 in case there was a war, through the six years of war because there was a war, and when the war was over, in order to facilitate the Government's attempt to get us back to peace—we have had this Government now for six years and they have not got us back to peace—that means that it gets more and more difficult to undo it. We have already gone so far in habituating our minds to this kind of Government that some of us begin to fear we can never shake it off.
That is a very serious matter, and even if things are not yet quite as bad as that—and they are not awfully far off it—it must be admitted by everybody, even the learned Attorney-General—except when he has just got it up for the purpose of a debate—that none of us can remember which regulation comes in which category and under which Statute. It is this kind of legislation by reference, regulation and retrospection that has reached such a pitch that—I will not say it is of such complexity because that is too respectable a word—that we get such a muddle that really none of us really understands it.
If every subject is presumed to know the law, then Governments must be presumed to do their best to make at least the main parts of the law knowable. The relation between Statutory Instrument and Statute has become one of the main parts of the law, and if this is now necessary, then something by way of codification and clarification has become necessary. I finish up by saying that the introduction of this Bill is deplorable and the manner of its introduction—the Lord President may decide whether what I am saying is pompous or facetious as he chooses—was intolerable.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I should like to reassure my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, if he needs reassuring, that the rebuke which he has just received from the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) need not worry him. Although my right hon. and learned Friend did not hear the early part of the hon. Member's speech, I heard it and I can tell him that it meant no more in its first half than it did in the last half, most of which he heard.
I much prefer the interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), who spoke for the Liberal Party. I agree with him that big issues are involved in the Bill, and I think that the Lord President of the Council was right in complimenting the Liberals on having, in former legislation, secured the inclusion of a Clause, which safeguarded certain matters. They certainly deserved the compliment for their previous work. I wish to defend the Liberals, because there are many important Liberal principles which I support, and which have been inherited from my Radical forefathers. Those principles have been worked into the ideas for which the Labour Party stands.
I do not wish to indulge in the quarrel which has emerged in this debate about the larger issues of the extension of supplies and services. It is said that practically anything the Government want to do they can do under the terms of the Bill, and I am sure that under this Government we are more likely to get reasonable safeguards against such dangers and prospects than we would get if the Government were composed of Members sitting on the benches opposite.
I wish to ask a few questions about the issue that is raised by Clause 2, which deals with land and roads. I have been looking very carefully at this Clause, having in mind some of the problems which will face me in my own division as a result of re-armament, which is largely responsible for the Bill—though I shall not deal with the problem of rearmament now. That has become a separate issue. I may be reminded, however, that it is easy to forget what is going on in the Far East when talking about things that are under our noses, but I am compelled to examine closely what

is to happen to people under the Clauses of the Bill.
The people in my division will be affected in one respect. They are in the habit of going to the railway station by a certain road day after day, on their way to work. If the Army or the R.A.F. find it necessary to include this road in an area for a new camp or a new R.A.F. station, the people who formerly walked one mile to the station may very well have to walk three. They will have time during their long walks to consider what this Bill means to them. In my division there is a great racecourse, and I have taken considerable part in getting it turned over to housing. I want to provide houses. I know that roads are planned for that purpose and that the War Office wants to lay its hands on the racecourse again in order to use the grandstands as storehouses. If the War Office gets its hands on this land, as it threatens to do, because public notice has been given, then probably even the roads necessary for the carting of bricks and mortar on to the land, so that houses may be built, will be closed.
It may be that they will be closed by the Minister of Transport. It will not be the "brass hats" who will do it. They will tell the Minister what he should do. That is mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. This Clause differs from the war-time provision in that it vests power in the Minister of Transport to stop up highways and requires him to give notice before he uses the power. That is all very well, but if these overriding considerations of re-armament and the events in the Far East, are of such a character that the Minister of Transport feels that he must stop up these roads then the people in my division will not get the houses which they so badly need. The great housing estate for which I have been hoping for the last five years will be hindered in its development by this Bill.
I have heard old Radicals talk about the fights they had about the use of roads and highways when military authorities, in past wars, interfered with public rights, until it is almost inbred in me, as it is in many of my hon. Friends, that the greatest care should be exercised whenever the military make demands of this sort. I know what has happened as a result of the closing of roads during the last war. It took the military authorities


a long time to decide that roads that were no longer needed for war purposes should be reopened for public use. I know places in Yorkshire where beautiful by-roads, among the hills, were taken over for the storage of munitions. Years after the war was over, one was still debarred the right to walk, ride or run along any of those roads.
I know of roads over the Kentish Downs today where one would expect to have the right to go; but the military are still there with some broken-down shacks, with barbed wire and fences, and people may still not go about their lawful purposes. When war comes the military authorities seem to lose all sense of proportion on this question of the right use of roads and in the invasions they make against public use.
I hope that before we have finished with the Bill we shall carefully examine Clause 2. I hope we shall lay down far more explicitly than we seem to have been able to do so far that, if there he any legitimate use to which a road could be placed now, the Army and Air Force authorities shall not be allowed to go too easily to the Minister of Transport and use him for the purpose of putting an end to public rights and preventing necessary developments which the people want. Now that we have embarked on this full-scale race towards re-armament, I know that in my division it is with reference to legislation of this sort that the people will ultimately learn all that they have lost, and will lose, in the dreadful situation that now face us.
I do not argue against the Government facing, in the best way they can, the situation which confronts them; but I tell them that the greatest care ought to be exercised with this Bill, because of the threats which are involved against the public right. If necessary, Amendments should be introduced for purposes of definition, limitation and restriction before we can feel that we have done our duty as representatives of the people in this House.

5.47 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I found myself in agreement with everything the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), said when he emphasised the difficulty that always comes at the end of a war in

the matter of restoring amenities, rights of way and the like. Before passing to the topic which I want to discuss, I would say that he need not go so far as the Kentish Downs to see a glaring example of what he has been describing. On Hampstead Heath, a large area which was a gun site is still enclosed and huts still exist; and that on an open space which in perpetuity was supposed to be at the disposal of the people.
The Lord President of the Council, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, gave the House a painstaking, historical survey. He pointed out that this is the last arrival, in a rather rapidly growing family, of Measures of this kind. I do not think that he would disagree with me if I were to venture the opinion that this Bill is a grand-daughter of D.O.R.A. which attained such objectionable prominence in the First World War. Its immediate parents arrived at the time of the outbreak of war in 1939 when, in some 12 days, the House passed through all stages 62 Acts of Parliament—I think the number was 62 though that may be slightly too high an estimate—it being understood that they would be examined later and were, in any case, for the period of the emergency.
The right hon. Gentleman and others, including the Secretary of State for Air, whom I see opposite, will recall that fatal Sunday, 3rd September, 1939, when the House met to the accompaniment of the first air raid siren of the war, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) used words which, I think, are worthy of repetition at this moment and which, I think, underline and emphasise the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford said:
Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the Executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will he in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd September, 1939: Vol. 351, c. 295–6.]


The observations of my right hon. Friend were greeted with general cheers on both sides of the House on that occasion, but that has not been done. So far from the liberties and rights of the people being restored, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were successful in the General Election of 1945 they lost very little time in making plain their intention to clamp on many of these shackles permanently, taking advantage of emergency legislation which was placed on the Statute Book for the period of the war. So, again, in the Gracious Speech to which we listened on 31st October last year, there was envisaged a Bill making permanent a great many of these wartime regulations.
The Lord President made it clear in his speech that this Measure lies in a kind of no man's land between the two sides of the House. My hon. Friends and myself on this side believe that the State exists for the benefit of the individual, whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The permanent legislation which they hope one day to introduce will make that quite clear, but we, on this side, support the present Measure, in view of the situation with which we are now confronted.
The cold war has now become tepid, and may well become hot. Special powers would be necessary in such an eventuality, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) stressed —and I do not think it can be said too often—we utterly resist any intention that this Measure, or any of is successors, should become the foundation stone of a permanent structure of control and regimentation.
Clause 1 is reminiscent of a book by the late Mr. H. G. Wells, which he called "The Time Machine." In it he imagined a world where it was possible to travel very rapidly in either direction, into the future or into the past. This Clause has a very strong retrospective provision in it. That point has been dealt with cogently and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), but it is none the less a point which requires stressing, and I would say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, in giving a Second Reading to this

Bill without a division, in view of the emergency, we are placing an extremely sharp instrument in their hands, and I plead with them for this reason to use it with care. The wider the area of controls—and I wish this were not so, but it is—the wider the black market. We saw that in the period immediately following the end of the recent war, when those strange and shadowy figures flitted across the stage of the Lynskey Tribunal and were so ably unmasked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. A popular newspaper described it as the way in which the Socialist Government had created a land fit for Stanleys to "spiv" in. The longer and wider the controls, the wider the black market operations are liable to become.
Direction of labour by delegated legislation is abhorrent to us on these benches, as more than one of my right hon. Friends has already said. It turns the citizens of this country into numbers on a ministerial card index, instead of people with their own private lives to live, and we would like to see in any Bill which may be used to bring in direction of labour the machinery of appeal in the many cases of hardship and injustice which are inevitable when we are mobilising thousands and even millions of men.
I feel a little uneasy on the subject, in view of the speech made last Thursday by the Minister of Labour, which I am sure we all recognised as a particularly brilliant Parliamentary performance, even when judged by his standards. I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice that I was going to say a few critical words about him, and I make no complaint that he is not here, because we all know that he has serious duties to perform. The most striking moment of the right hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech, Parliamentary triumph as it undoubtedly was, came when, with sinister relish he rolled his tongue round the word "direction." He said:
I am bound to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman "—
that was a reference to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who preceded the right hon. Gentleman—
that if it becomes necessary to control the engagement of labour it will also he necessary to discuss with the employers how far their


activities also are to be restricted in employing workers in non-essential industries. There is such a matter as the direction of employers as well as the direction of labour.
In cold print, that reads as if it was quite unobjectionable, but it was the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman declaimed it which suggested that he was about to ascend his dictatorial throne and how much he was going to enjoy it. A little later, with even greater satisfaction, he said this:
I have to say something here which perhaps will not be so pleasant to some hon. Members. As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, the size of the Armed Forces fell below expectations because of the manpower position, and it has been found necessary to make a decision that the ' blanket' shall be removed from agriculture."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, cc. 731–;2.]

Mr. Nabarro: Shame.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Lesser men have been removed from office for expressing such sentiments. What happened to a recent Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who used exactly similar language about the agricultural industry?

Mr. Albu: Nonsense.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: All of us hope that, in these difficult matters, the Minister of Labour will not find it necessary to use this control for directing men hither and thither. We all wish him success in his difficult post, and I hope that the Class Z men will not report for duty waving medical certificates and saying that they will fight whom when and where they like.
I emphasise to the Government that, in spite of the situation which the Lord President stressed to us as being the primary reason for bringing forward this Bill, the people are getting very tired of being pushed around and having their private lives controlled because the State has fallen down on its job. After all, Bills which are discussed in this House should feel the impact of opinion outside in the country, and I would say that this opinion is that controls have become intolerable. I say this in the presence of a representative of the Government Whips' Office, a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who will know something about it.
It was particularly noticeable in the recent contest at West Bristol, where there

was a sensational fall in the Socialist vote. [Interruption.] I am trying to point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that controls, with which this Bill deals, were a considerable issue in the West Bristol by-election, and that the Government would be wise to take heed of what happened there. I say that quite briefly, because I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should know what is going on.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not mentioned groundnuts.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I believe that groundnuts would be in order under the Clause dealing with the colonial territories, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not in my mind.
I want to make this point as to the state of public opinion outside on this matter, because it was said that the withdrawal of the official blessing from the Government candidate was responsible for his poor showing. I can assure hon. Members opposite that that was not so. This issue of controls and régimentation was the primary cause of that result, and, indeed, it is the general opinion in the City of Bristol that had the Prime Minister sent a letter of support to Mr. Lawrance, that unhappy gentleman would have forfeited his deposit. Therefore, let the Government heed this state of affairs.
Looking round, I would say to hon. Members opposite that many of them are in danger of becoming time servers, awaiting their early release from public life, rather than representatives of their constituencies, and I would ask the Treasury Bench, in the friendliest manner, to take heed. For Socialism, the wind blows cold, not only in the West Country, but throughout our whole island, and the storm is rising.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) into the intricacies, which I think are out of order, of this Bill. Nor do I want to make any party point upon it. I merely want to draw the attention of the House to Clause 2 (1, c). I am concerned about the farming fraternity under this Bill, and I should like to know whether it is seriously assumed that 24 hours' notice would be sufficient to give a farmer that it might be necessary to divert a road


through his field of wheat or other cereal —at a time like this a valuable commodity—which might thereby be lost to the community.
It seems a little ridiculous for the party opposite to put up this synthetic shadow boxing over our efforts to defend the country at the present moment. One moment we are accused of not trying wholeheartedly to defend the country, and the next moment, when we are trying to get legitimate powers, with appropriate safeguards, to act immediately, we have, at a critical period in the history of this little country, this kind of childish shadow boxing and the making of party speeches in preparation for General Election. Some hon. and gallant Members opposite shake their heads, but the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) played nothing but party politics with the issue of the defence of this country the other night, when he divided the House on the whole question of defence. They can still shake their heads, but that is what the country thinks.
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that the farming fraternity want a better guarantee than 24 hours' notice before certain powers are used for diverting roads across valuable land for defence purposes.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): It might save my hon. Friend's time and that of the House if I pointed out to him that under this Bill it is only a question of stopping up highways, and not of taking land other than highways.

Mr. Davies: Exactly, but when driving up and down the country I have been accustomed to see such notices as "No one may stop here," and notices to the effect that land may not be used in areas where secret processes are taking place.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We have that in the area between Leek and Buxton.

Mr. Davies: That is so, and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West, made a point in which I am also concerned when he referred to the Colonies. I should like to know what protection the native populations in our Colonies have under this Bill if they want to protest against the diversion of their land for purposes of defence.
Such diversion might take place in a cocoa or rice growing area or in other important agricultural parts of a Colony. I am quite sure that some of us on both sides of the House feel that there should be a real safeguard, and that in some specific cases more consideration should be given to weighing the value to national defence as against the interests of colonial agriculture when any question of the diversion of roads or the consruction of defensive works arises.
I do not wish to delay the House any longer, and I merely put forward that point as one who comes from an agricultural area and who is also concerned with the welfare of the Colonies. I should be grateful for a crystal-clear answer to this question: What are the powers of Parliament if it is felt that this Measure is causing any frustration to individuals of the farming community in such circumstances?

Mr. McCorquodale: I should just like to say that we hope in Committee to be able, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, to put down Amendments to stipulate that these orders should be debated by this House and that the facility of praying against them, if necessary, should be available to hon. Members. We hope to get support for that from hon. Members opposite.

6.7 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens: It is with very great personal regret that, within 11 months of coming back into this House, I find Parliament having to discuss a new Bill imposing controls and restrictions on the people of this country. I am bound to say that I regret that, but I think one must follow the advice given by the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), and that we must vote in favour of this Bill, or, at any rate, let it go through without opposition. subject to amendment.
But I disagree both with the Lord President and with the right hon. Member for Epsom in thinking that this is not a major Measure. It is a major Measure which will most seriously affect the liberty of the subject and interfere very greatly with the freedom of trade. It is because the international situation is such as it is that we in this House have to accept the Bill, but when the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) talks about taking


powers with safeguards, I am bound to say that very few safeguards are to be found in this Bill. They have got to be obtained in Committee.
I should like to remind the House of the history of this type of legislation. In the First World War, there were numerous phrases in the Defence of the Realm Regulations which enabled the subject, on important occasions, to take the matter to the court; but when the Regulations were brought before the House during the last war, there had been ample time for the bureaucrats to take care that every single one of the remedies allowed to the subject under the old Regulations was taken from him.
I was one of those who, in regard to the famous Defence Regulation 18B, fought in this House, together with hon. Members of the Liberal Party, in particular, and with some hon. Members on the other side—I think 10 of us were consulted on that occasion—in order to try to get some safeguards for the subject when this type of legislation is introduced. Of course, one knows it is very difficult, and that there are no safeguards in the Bill. The result is that in cases where most hardship is being caused, attempts to go to the court are quite hopeless, and a waste of time for the subject. But when the situation is as it is. I agree with an hon. Member opposite who said that he was sure the people could not withhold from the Government ample powers to deal with it in the way they think necessary.
I want to say a word, first of all, about the retrospective effect of the Bill, and secondly about Clause 1 (1, b). As regards retrospective effect, it is quite obvious that some of His Majesty's Ministers have had some advice from their legal advisers that probably what they have done or are proposing to do is covered by existing powers but that, on the other hand, there may be a doubt about it and if there is a doubt about it and they carry it out, some subject, to his great cost, will carry the matter to the court. If he succeeds, retrospective legislation will then be passed because, believe me, no Government in an emergency can afford to have a subject stop something being done which is vital to the interests of the country.
Therefore, although I abhor retrospective legislation as much as anybody in this House, if in fact there are doubts—and we must hear what those doubts are in due course—it is far better that they should be cleared up by us in this House at once before there is a series of actions in the courts which can bring nothing but cost to the subject who fights them. So much for retrospective legislation.
Now I come to what seems to me to be the enabling and extending powers given in this Bill under Clause 1 (1, b). I very much doubt whether there are existing powers which go to anything like the length of sub-paragraph (b) in
preventing supplies or services being disposed of in a manner prejudicial to the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions….
and covering all goods and all services. I agree that it is not direction of labour as far as services are concerned, but it seems to me that it goes to the length of preventing any of us from being employed or offering our services in a manner which His Majesty's Government or a Minister thinks is against the interests of the country. It has got very near to direction of labour. It is the negative side of direction of labour. It says, in effect, "You shall not go here or there and you shall not do this or that "and it may well result in one's having to do something the Government want.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that during his previous membership of this House in 1940 the then Prime Minister introduced a Measure which gave the Government complete control over everything in the country. We remember that it was used against labour but not used against certain people who put their vested interests before the welfare of the public.

Sir P. Spens: I cannot recollect the Measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but what we are now dealing with is this Bill. I want to point out that it goes extremely wide as regards services.
What is equally important at this juncture is the enormous power it gives to the Executive over the direction of goods and trade. I am not going to say that that may not be a good thing. I have had sent to me by airmail, which arrived some three hours ago from America, a leading article dated 16th February from a paper called "New York World-


telegram." The heading of the article is "British Let Us down." It goes on to set out reports of the amount of rubber and materials, wool and steel, which it is alleged are being sent at present to Russia and China.

Mr. Harold Davies: Private enterprise, not the Labour Government.

Sir P. Spens: That does not matter for my argument Let me go on. The leading article includes this:
How can we win a war when an ally—which we are backing—persists in selling much-needed raw materials to the enemy? 
The enemy include those whom we are fighting in Korea—the Chinese troops. That is the allegation in this leading article, and it is for that reason that I go to the length of saying that I am glad the Government are taking these powers. I believe that the fact that the Government are today asking this House to approve the Second Reading of a Bill which is going to enable them to prevent
…supplies or services being disposed of in a manner prejudicial to the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions or any such territory as aforesaid or to peace and security in any part of the world …
is an answer to those allegations in the American paper. At any rate, it will show to the United States of America that this House is prepared in this emergency to give His Majesty's Government these powers. It will be for His Majesty's Government to make up their mind how they are going to use the powers. It is quite certain that these allegations across the Atlantic about what is going on at the present moment are causing a rift between the United States and this country. It is, among other reasons, because this Bill contains that Clause giving powers to the Government, which I hope will be wisely and properly used by them, that I am certainly not prepared to vote against the Second Reading.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I did not intend to intervene in this debate until I heard some of the speeches from the benches opposite. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), who is a professor, I understand, and is given in this House to delivering to us fine professorial lectures, challenged us to tell him our opinion of direction of labour.
We were asked what the Bill seeks to do and what the Government are telling the country they intend to do under the Bill.
If the Government are dishonest and withhold necessary information from the public, we are told by the Opposition that we ought to have done this, that and the other. If the Government are honest and straightforward and bring in a Bill giving them almost unlimited power to do everything necessary in extreme emergency, we are wrong again, according to the Opposition. Not many days ago I saw Members of the Opposition troop into the Lobby to support vast expenditure on armaments to protect this country which is so dear to us all. The same people will get up and tell us that we ought not to do the best we possibly can to implement the spending of the money we have decided to devote to the protection of this country. I cannot understand their reasoning.
The Opposition talk about the direction of labour as if it were something which only they understood. We on this side have always been used to this direction of labour, not by the Minister of Labour but by a minister of finance who has said, "You shall go here and you shall not go there," because there was no work. The people on these benches know more about the economic direction of labour than do any hon. Members opposite.
On these benches we are prepared to face the necessity, if it arises, of telling our people in unmistakable terms that they shall be used wherever the Government decide that they shall be used in the interest of the safety of the nation. Surely that is fair enough. If it is right to make laws and direct young men to Korea and elsewhere, surely it cannot be wrong to direct men from the glamour industries—the "spivs" and others—into steel works to make munitions to enable those boys in Korea to do their job. What is wrong with direction of labour in those circumstances? I compliment the Government on their honesty in telling our people and the world at large that we are prepared to use all the means at our disposal to attain that end.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), made a splendid case for this Bill. He read from


a newspaper cutting, which arrived by airmail three hours ago, and which complained that we had let the Americans down. Let me tell the Americans in no uncertain terms that the men of Britain never let America down. We shed our blood and our wealth while they stood by wondering what was going on in the world. Let us make no mistake about that. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a perfect case for this Bill. Here was the American Press shouting from the house-tops that private enterprise in Britain was letting the world down, and that steel, copper and ferrous metals, at the instigation of private enterprise, were going to our potential enemies. Surely that in itself is a case for' this Bill.
We are told that this Bill will not go to a Division. The Opposition are far too wily and cute to go into the Lobby and say to the country, "We, the Tories, voted to send men to Korea, but we refuse to let the Government have the necessary powers to help people do things in the interests of our country."

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like to take up some of the words which have been spoken with such vehemence and feeling by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). It is not that we on these benches are expressing any opinion at all about the direction of labour. We do ask, though, that if the Government want to introduce direction of labour they should bring into this House a separate Statute. We could then introduce Amendments to the Bill. This is a very important Measure, and we should like to see the Government justifying it in every possible way. We on these benches are quite open-minded. We do not want to see direction of labour entering through the back door by means of a Bill of this sort, which the Lord President described as a small Measure.
I should like to take up some of the statements which were made by the hon. Members for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) and Edmonton (Mr. Albu). Speaking for myself, I do not find any inconsistency in the clear view taken by my hon. Friends on this Bill. The hon. Member for Edmonton seemed to suggest that we did not know whether we were for it or against it. He also tried to put into our mouths the statement that we wanted

much more expended on armaments. We are not in a position to know whether more or less should be spent on armaments. Our view has always been, and we still believe, that we are not getting value for the money which we are at present spending on armaments. We also feel that we are not getting action to back up the sweet words and the promises that are made from the Treasury Bench in respect of armaments. It is action that we want.
Broadly we support this Measure, but I think we are not being unrealistic if we view with some trepidation the retrospective provision in line 7 of Clause 1 (1). I was under the impression that the Board of Trade had over the past years already issued an extensive list of those things which can and which cannot be exported from this country. Are we now to understand that they were out of order and were not acting within the law by issuing that list? Are we, therefore, to give them a blanket "O.K." on all previous actions? It is a strange state of affairs, because that list has been accepted by industry who have always kept to it as rigorously as possible.
There is one other small point to which I should like to refer; it was touched on by the hon. Member for Leek. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply later is not here: however, I have given him notice that I should mention this point. The hon. Member said that farmers would be in some difficulty when roads were closed at short notice We all know full well that with heavier and faster aircraft, longer runways are needed. Longer runways may mean the closing of roads, but one point which has not yet been clarified is whether we are to compensate farmers or owners of small businesses like garages, or anybody whose livelihood is affected as a result of the closing of these roads.
It is a small point, but it is the sort of point which should be clarified, because there may be a person who has rehabilitated his business after the last war, when probably the same road was closed, and if the road is again closed he will be put out of business. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies to the debate, I hope he will deal with this matter. I should like to know whether reasonable compensation will be paid to those people whose livelihood has been taken away by the closing of these roads.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I do not propose to detain the House for long, because it is clear that the majority of hon. Members endorse this Bill; but one statement has been made to which a reply should be given. The hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said that he believed that the State existed for the individual, and that the more controls we had, the less freedom there would be to the individual. That is completely false. When we had no controls of any kind, there was considerable suffering and misery and lack of liberty among millions of people in the country.
It is significant that even in America it has now been decided to introduce controls, particularly in relation to the materials like those with which most of this Bill is concerned—the raw materials of the munitions industry. Judging from one's experience in two wars, it is obvious that if there is no strict and rigid control, not only will the materials not find their way into the factories where they are most needed, but, what is even worse, there will be gross exploitation of the needs of the nation. That occurred to a large extent during the last two wars.
The Government will not get the overwhelming and enthusiastic support of the ordinary workers in the factories if, coupled with the control of the supply and issue of raw materials, there is not a firm control over the amount of additional profits which are made out of the production of munitions during the next year or two. I cannot see in this Bill any reference to the possibility of additional controls in that direction, but I hope that the Supplies and Services Act, 1947, provides the necessary powers and that they will be used extensively.
I should like to say a word about the direction of labour, which hon. Members opposite have constantly introduced into these discussions. Nobody likes the direction of labour if it can possibly be avoided, but I am sure that if the ordinary workmen in the trade unions of this country are given the facts they will rally to the support of this or any other Government if we become involved in a war, as they did in 1939 and in the earlier war. But if direction is to come—I hope it will not —it ought not to come as it has come before, merely by the issuing of an order by this House, without the fullest con-

sultation, discussion and agreement with the organised trade union movement. I refer to that because, in the quotations which were made from the speech of the Minister of Labour, I thought that a completely false emphasis was given to the remarks he made. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he has already begun discussions with the National Advisory Council who advise him on labour and industrial matters, not on the necessity for control of labour in the way we have had it in the past, but on the necessity for a positive approach by both sides of industry towards increasing output and organising labour in the factories on the correct basis.
I hope that whatever is done will be done only after the trade unic ns of the country have been given the widest opportunity of discussion and the widest opportunity to reach agreement, and that the final proposals will already have been agreed by the trade unions before they come to this House. It does not fellow that this House will necessarily accept them, but at any rate we ought to be assured that the organised workers of the country, without whom no such programme as this can be completed, are given the fullest possible opportunity of discussing the Government's proposals and plans and that their agreement is sought before the final plan is introduced.
It has been suggested, in a reference which seemed to me to have little to do with the Bill, that public opinion was weakening the basis upon which this Government rests. I wondered what that meant. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman in question was referring to a statement in the Press last Sunday to the effect that there are people in the country who are deliberately burning more fuel and more electricity than they need for the purpose of embarrassing the Government. I wondered whether he was lending support to the statement made by the president of that egregious organisation called the Housewives' League, who said that in March they would discuss in the council of their organisation the question of extending this campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members must talk to the people who made those statements; they were not made by me. If that is the kind of public opinion to which the hon. Member referred and which hon. Gentlemen opposite think is likely to influence anybody on these


benches, then they reflect very poorly the real public opinion of the country.
I hope the Government will stick to their guns on this matter. I do not believe that the majority of people in the country are opposed to the proposals which are introduced for increasing controls and for securing that whatever is done is done in the interests of the great masses of the people and not merely, as so often in the past, in the interests of comparatively few. If that is assured, I am certain that the Bill, and any other proposals which may be necessary to ensure that the programme is carried through successfully, will be supported by the overwhelming majority of the people.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not want to detain the House for long, but there are one or two points to which I should like to make brief reference. First, it should be noted that this is a Bill to extend the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. I gather from the speeches that have been made so far from the Opposition benches that the Opposition propose to support that extension of the 1945 Act. That, no doubt, is good news; it removes one element of controversy from our national life. But it is as well to remind the Opposition that if they had had their way there would have been no Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, to extend. They are, therefore, in the somewhat inconsistent position of being now unanimously in favour of extending what formerly they unanimously opposed, even in its limited form.
These are the facts; there may be explanations of them, but I think the facts themselves are so far beyond dispute. Indeed, I think I understand the explanation. The explanation is clearly implicit and sometimes explicit in some of the speeches which have been made today and in many of the speeches which were made on each of the previous occasions when the Government sought such powers and were given such powers, in the teeth of the most strenuous opposition from the other side of the House. It is because this extension of these powers is in contemplation of war.
I do not say for a moment that right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that the circumstances which they think would justify the use of these powers

should ever occur. I believe that charge is sometimes made, and I think it is unfairly made. I am sure there is nobody on the other side of the House who would be any more gratified at the thought of another war occurring than would hon. Members on this side of the House. The difference is the difference of emphasis and the difference of policy, and it is possible to say what I have just said and still believe, as I do believe, that if there were a change of Government the remaining hope of preserving the peace of the world would quickly vanish, whereas with this Government in power there remains the hope that peace may be preserved. But that is not the point I want to make in this connection. My point is one which would be accepted, I think, by most hon. Members opposite as a fair statement of their view. They think that powers of this kind are justified only in war or in preparation for a war which might occur. They have opposed the powers so far because, as they have frequently said, we were living in peace.
But between 1945 and 1951 this country was living through a world economic crisis in which we had our own share of the burden—and a very heavy share of the burden—and in which, if we had not succeeded, we should have been in no position to make any use of this Measure. The fact that we are in a position to make use of this Measure, or to play our part in such emergency as we all hope may never occur, is due to the economic triumphs of the past five years, and to them alone. If we were in the economic position which existed in 1945. of what use would a Bill like this be to us? The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seems to be vastly amused, but I confess I do not know what there is to be amused about. I think I was stating a plain statement of fact—that if it had not been for the vast economic achievements of the past five years—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: "Triumphs" was the word the hon. Gentleman used.

Mr. Silverman: If it had not been for the triumphs of the past five years, we should be in no position to make any use of the Bill. If the hon. Member is amused at my use of the word "triumphs," I hope he will tell me what word he thinks would be more appropriate to describe the change between a position in 1945 when we were, utterly


and completely, industrially, economically and financially bankrupt, and a position five years later in which, for the first time in a quarter of a century, we are paying our way in the world.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is good enough to challenge me. May I say this? I should not use the word "triumph" to describe a state of affairs in which the people of this country have available to them less meat, less coal, less electricity, and a worse housing situation than ever before.

Mr. Silverman: I do not want at this time to debate with the hon. Gentleman any of those points. I think I should be ruled out of order if I attempted to do so. But I think he is wrong in saying, except in the case of meat, that the people of this country have available to them less of the other things that he mentioned than before. In fact, in the case of all of them except meat, there is vastly more consumed in this country than at any other time in its history.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: How can the hon. Gentleman say that there is more coal today than when we were producing 269 million tons?

Mr. Speaker: This is the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Bill, and I think we had better come back to it.

Mr. Silverman: Without debating or arguing these other things, I would point out that the fact is that we are producing and consuming nearly 250,000 tons of coal more every year than at our previous highest record.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Not producing.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must really look it up to see.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is not true that we are producing more coal than before the war.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to intervene to make that remark, although he knows that Mr. Speaker has just ruled that we cannot argue the matter. We will leave the facts to speak for themselves, but we are undoubtedly consuming more of all the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, with the possible exception of meat, and but for the intervention of the Opposition we could have overcome that difficulty by

now. However, I do not want to be diverted further, for it does not advance the debate and it does not advance the question to which I was addressing myself. I was dealing with other things.
Suppose, however, that the hon. Gentleman were as right in his facts as I think he is wrong, he would surely be the first to agree that that does not in any way detract from the fact, which he admits, and which I stated before he made his intervention, that we have in five years changed our position from one of utter and complete bankruptcy in 1945—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—Well, they are Lord Woolton's words when he was Minister of Reconstruction in the Caretaker Government. Now, by the beginning of this year, for the first time for more than a quarter of a century, we are actually paying our way in the world. I used the word "triumphs," and I invited the hon. Gentleman, who questioned the word, to tell me what word he thought more appropriate. He neglected that opportunity, and I do not propose to give him another.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has twice repeated this point about our economic position. Would he not agree that it has been largely due to Marshall Aid, backed up by some loans and gifts from our Dominions, and that it was this assistance which helped us to gain the position where we have stockpiled dollars instead of stockpiling raw materials?

Mr. Silverman: I purposely refrained from discussing the question of responsibility, praise, blame, or any other question of that kind. I was stating the plain fact that there has been achieved what I still describe as this economic triumph in the past five years; and I take it that that is not disputed by anybody except the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who would, of course, dispute anything I said for the mere fun of it, irrespective of the merits.
The point I was making with regard to this Bill is that none of this triumph could possibly have been achieved if the Opposition had had their way and deprived the Government of their powers in the 1945 Act. An essential part of what we have been able to do is attributable to the fact that the Government have had these powers which the Opposition would


have denied them. Whatever may be said about Marshall Aid and dollars and all the rest of it, a great many other countries have had more Marshall Aid and more dollars than we have had in the last five years. In proportion to our population, we have given more to other countries than we have received during that period, and in the years before the war our income from our American investments was greater than any Marshall Aid we received—

Mr. Speaker: I think it is time we came back to the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: Therefore, I repeat that what we have achieved is indeed a triumphant vindication of the policy in economic affairs of the Government—and that in spite of the fact that the Opposition sought to reject the original Act which now they wish to extend. I say that the purposes we have achieved by these measures during these five years were as much a national necessity as the purposes now contemplated.
But before I sit down I want to say one other thing. We are not yet at war. So many hon. Members on the other side talk as though either we were at war already or war was inevitable so that we must take our measures for it today because it might happen tomorrow. Anyone who takes that view takes his own responsibility for it, and he is entitled to take that view if he thinks it the right one to take, but I, for one—and I think most Members on this side of the House —certainly do not regard the state of the world today, unsatisfactory as it is, as being a state of war. Certainly not. And we certainly have not given up the hope that, with the constructive, imaginative leadership, which this Government can and, I hope, will give, the world can be led out of its present situation, and international peace made secure and international security achieved.
I think that the Bill is too widely drawn for the purposes that we have in view, unless it is accepted that war has become a virtual inevitability. I draw attention to one phrase in Clause 1 (1, a and b). I have every sympathy with what the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) had to say about the advisability of clearing up doubts about the meaning, extent and scope of a Measure of this kind while we still have possession of it in this House and before

we lose possession of it in this House and it becomes arguable elsewhere. These words are very wide indeed. Subsection 1 (a) says
providing or securing supplies and services …
and subsection 1 (b) speaks of
preventing supplies or services being disposed of …
In both cases the supplies and services are spoken of not merely as being
…required for the defence of any part of His Majesty's dominions or any territory under His Majesty's protection or in which he has jurisdiction…
but the Clause goes on—and these words, I think, really must be wholly unprecedented in the whole legislative history of this country—to give the Government power to make orders or to delegate legislation—for what purpose other than those I have mentioned?—
…for the maintenance or restoration of peace and security in any part of the world …
That seems to me to be a very wide measure of delegated legislation.
Like everybody else in the House, I agree that delegated legislation is unavoidable in modern conditions. I dislike it in some of its forms, perhaps much less than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do. There are differences of opinion, of emphasis, of degree and of preference as to the kind of subject—or the extent to which in any subject on which there should be delegated legislation, but I think it is a very tall order indeed to give a Government power by delegated legislation to do anything they like with supplies and with services
for the maintenance or restoration of peace and security in any part of the world.
The denial of raw materials to the Soviet Union might be important to reach peace and security, but are His Majesty's Government under this Bill taking power by delegated legislation to provide for that? Of course not. It is an absurd suggestion to make, and my objection to those words is precisely that they are wide enough to cover so absurd a suggestion as that and a wide variety of equally absurd suggestions, which no doubt will occur to many hon. Members. I think that these words will have to be looked at in Committee with great care to sea that they do not go so wide as to destroy the essence of the very thing that we are all hoping to preserve.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: In these critical times I am reasonably satisfied that the additional powers which this Bill seeks to give to the Government are necessary. Nevertheless, during the remaining stages of the Bill we shall seek to introduce certain safeguards, even perhaps territorial safeguards such as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has just indicated. What has disturbed me most this afternoon has been the jaunty and flippant way in which the Lord President introduced the Bill. It has already been pointed out that from the very manner in which he introduced the Bill one could not help feeling that he had something to conceal and was trying to get away with another "fast one."
There were a number of revealing passages in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. For example, he told us that defence and re-armament were "coming more and more into the centre of the picture. "There are many people who feel that defence and re-armament should already be in the centre of the picture, and should have been there for some time, and that if we were attaching the same amount of importance to the rearmament programme as is being attached to it by our friends the Americans the state of the world would be, far more satisfactory than it is.
The Lord President appears to have found in present day conditions a justification for the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, which has been continued from time to time., and he said how wise the Government were to have continued it. Perhaps he was wise, because he, knows as well as anybody that any country that has to put up with a Socialist Government for as long as five years is bound to be an open invitation to Communist aggression.
Another thing that surprises me about the Bill is the title of Clause 1, which says that the Act of 1945 is to include defence and the maintenance of world peace, as though that had not been the concern of His Majesty's Government during the last five years. They have been far too busy introducing "Socialism in our time" to pay attention to what was going on in the world around them. A great deal has been said this afternoon about the re-armament programme and the attitude of the Conservative Party

towards the Government on that issue. For myself, I have no confidence in the Government's ability to carry out this programme efficiently or adequately. We have done nothing to hinder them in the steps they propose to take, and we shall continue to give them the benefit of our advice, but our confidence in their ability to do the job properly, and the confidence of the people in the Government's ability to fulfil this important task, are far from what the Government may imagine.
I am glad to see from Clause 1 (1, b) that the Government have at last brought in a legislative provision to protect themselves against their own folly of having sent war materials—jet aircraft and other important supplies—to our potential enemies up to now, and that at least they now have this Clause to prevent those disastrous transactions being repeated. That is all I wish to say about the Bill at present. We shall deal with it ruthlessly in the Committee and remaining stages. I conclude by repeating that I have no confidence in the Government to whom these powers are being given.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I support the Bill, but probably in a different frame of mind from that of any hon. Member who has spoken so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) supported the Bill in his usual boisterous way, and took the view that it ought to have been introduced a long time ago. I say, with all due deference, that I cannot see how any hon. Member who supports the rearmament programme can do anything else but support the Bill; it is an inevitable concomitant of the defence programme. It is, of course, an infringement of civil liberties; it is intended to be. It will curtail the liberty of the subject; but that is part of war.
As one who has been in a war, I know that one of the curses of the First World War was the slogan "Business as usual." There cannot be business as usual during a war, and it is about time some people realised it. I know the difficulties of men in the field when the ordinary life of the nation is not geared up for war purposes.
If we are to have soldiers we must have them trained. The War Office descended upon Lancashire and came to


the beauty spot of the county, Anglezarke, one of the nicest parts of the country. I am from Bolton and am a member of a local authority, and I was one of those who opposed the War Office taking this ground for training troops. I do not know whether it was eloquence, or whether it was just sticking to it, but we got them away from Anglezarke and they went to another part of Lancashire which we suggested, Hailstorm Hill, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. J. Hale).
We then sat back and thought we had done our job very well. But the people at Rochdale mobilised themselves, and the War Office had the same old business of trying to persuade the people around Rochdale that if we are to have soldiers we must be able to train them. But Rochdale won the day, too. Lancashire was so good that it beat the War Office twice in succession. There is no part of Lancashire and no section of the public that, willingly and enthusiastically, will co-operate with the War Office in finding training grounds for soldiers who have to be trained in the modern world which has not yet learnt that war is a bad business for all concerned—that there are no winners in war, only losers.
We cannot do any other than support the Bill, but I do not support it for the same reasons as those given by the hon. Member for Rotherham and the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). One of the things about modern war, and the only good thing about it, is that it puts everyone in the front line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is a sad thing. In the old days, when we went to war with the Boer Republic, we sent the men off from Southampton and went back to the Oval to watch the Surrey cricket team play another team. It is different today. The whole of the economic resources of the nation and all the liberties of the people of this realm will have to become absolutely secondary to a war effort.
When I hear the Minister of Labour talking about the direction of labour and, if the necessity arises, the direction of other things, who am I to say "nay," who is any Member of the House, or any member of the community, to say "nay"? If the country is committed to war all things must give way to it. We will sacrifice the smaller liberties for the greater

liberties. I regret that there is no other course but for me to support this Bill, because if war comes to this country again. which God forbid, no let or hindrance or pretence of personal feeling or personal aggrandisement should be allowed to stand in the way of it being fought in the quickest and most humane manner.

7.3 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Without pledging myself to every word of the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Booth), when it comes to be analysed in cold print, let me assure him that in what he said he caught the spirit and reaction of all quarters of the House, and that we were very glad to hear his words.
I have one personal apology to make—that I was not present when the Lord President of the Council introduced the Bill. I communicated my sorrow to him, and he was able to assuage it by telling me that circumstances beyond his control placed him in the fortunate position of not having to listen to my speech, but my apology still stands.
I think that the important thing which has arisen in this debate arose from the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), to which I listened with great care and attention. The hon. Gentleman stressed—and it is a thing that cannot be stressed too much—that we have to face the problem of putting a Parliamentary democracy in a state of defence which will have the result of deterring a potential aggressor. The difference of emphasis between us is in the hon. Gentleman's next step in his argument, that in such circumstances it is necessary to concentrate power in the Executive and diminish the power of the House to control the Executive. We agree that the Executive must have power to do what is necessary, but it is a very serious abrogation of the very essence of Parliamentary democracy if we diminish Parliamentary control.
I put this to the hon. Gentleman because I am anxious to get his intellectual consideration of the point. We all hope that we may be successful in preventing war. That is the unanimous desire of the House; but we all know that it may be a long-term course of action which will secure that result, and it is a very serious matter indeed if, in envisaging a longterm course of action, we are prepared to


accept the trend expressed in this Bill, which is to add to the two great evils of modern Parliamentary Government—legislation by reference and delegated legislation—without producing the proper safeguards of Parliamentary control. That is the real difference. That is the point which I think we ought to consider in as non-party a way as we can, because it is a serious problem of how we are to work out the methods which we are to adopt and decide the road which we are to take.

Mr. Albu: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has exaggerated the argument I was using. I was at pains to point out the difficulties with which we were faced in the circumstances. I did not say that I was particularly in favour of a large degree of delegated legislation. I was supporting the Bill in the same way as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is supporting it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not want to make a cheap point, but I do want hon. Members in all parts of the House to consider this problem, because I believe that a great deal of the working of modern democracy depends upon getting the proper solution to it. I do not want to go too wide, Mr. Speaker, but that is the basic problem.
If we look at the position with which we are faced today, we cannot be satisfied with it. We have 100 defence regulations on the books, and, in addition, 16 subsidiary codes. That is a tremendous mass of backroom legislation which is not made in this House and which is only subject to the procedure of Prayer, which is very difficult to work. That is only the beginning. All these regulations have orders made under them, and practically every order has licences or permits depending upon it. Very little of that gets any Parliamentary control at all. That would be a situation which would require the attention of the House of Commons did it stop there; but after this Bill there may be three different Acts of Parliament which have to be looked at before anyone can find out for what purposes the Minister has exercised these powers.
We start with the 1945 Act, which deals with demobilisation and resettlement and the adjustment of industry for times of

peace. We then come to the 1947 Act, which was introduced as a result of the dollar crisis for the purpose of expanding our exports and increasing our imports. Again, its general purposes were in very wide terms, against which I animadverted when it was introduced. We are now adding a third purpose, that of defence. It means that we have three contradictory purposes for these Acts being on the Statute Book, which is not a very tidy or proper way of dealing with the problem. In addition, the time-limits for regulations under two of the acts have expired, and these are being continued by yet a third. The House ought to be critical of this way of doing its work.
I do not mind what debating points hon. Members may make of this, but I would not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill in view of the importance of defence—that is something we all recognise. However, we want assurances on the subject. To give a rather lighthearted example to show the somewhat wonderland position into which we have got, under which of these Acts and regulations would the Minister have power to lop off an inch from utility braces? I wish to make our view perfectly clear, because it is futile, having stated the problem, not to indicate how it ought to be dealt with.
The Government must examine not only the legislation but the regulations. The regulations can be put into three categories. In the first category we find those which can be revoked straightaway. For example, there are those regulations that have become redundant because of legislation which has been passed. Regulation 55A has become redundant because of the Statistics of Trade Act, and Regulations 62, 62A and 66 have become redundant because of the Agriculture Act. All of us could find many other regulations which are no longer necessary.

Mr. Poole: In view of the fact that delegated legislation goes back to 1870, it would mean that a great deal of clearing up would have to be done. It is no good just tackling the immediate problem.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has misunderstood my point. I am dealing with regulations which have been made since 1939. I am saying that they ought to be revoked and pruned, and I am putting them into three categories.
The first category, as I have said, is those which can be revoked. The second is those regulations which can be covered by non-contentious legislation. I will give two examples of this category—the registration of clubs and the regulation dealing with the number of Parliamentary Secretaries. These regulations could be dealt with by legislation, especially at the moment when there is no pressure of legislation, nor is there likely to be.
The third category concerns those regulations which have to be retained. These regulations should be retained on the basis that there is an opportunity each year to decide whether or not they should be continued. That would give Parliamentary control. I agree that this is not an easy job, but I have tried to study it, as the House will realise from the examples I have given. I would say this to the hon. Member for Edmonton. It is no easy job to work a Parliamentary democracy. It is far easier to govern with a heterogeneous bag of powers supported by heterogeneous Acts which can be used for any purpose that is desired. But that is not the way we shall achieve respect for what we all want, although we have different views as to how it shall be used. That is one of the reasons why we do not support this Bill with any pleasure. However, we have no hesitation where our duty lies.
Let me now deal with the question of retrospective powers. The House of Commons ought to be slow to give powers that amount to an indemnity for an ultra vires act on the part of the Minister without knowing what the ultra vires act is and why the Minister did it. There may be something beyond the memory of man but I cannot think of any Government coming to the House of Commons for an indemnity for something it does not know about—it is part of the argument of Members opposite that they do not know whether it has happened or not. We are being asked to give a blank cheque without knowing the reasons for it, which is something we ought to look into. It must be remembered that if one Government gets away with it other Governments will try to do the same thing when the time comes.
May I say one word about direction of labour? This is not the time to discuss whether it is right or practicable, but what is quite clear it that the Bill permits Regulation 58A, which deals with

the direction of labour, to be applied for defence purposes. Are hon. Members opposite satisfied that this is the method of dealing with so serious a subject? Personally, I do not think that direction of labour should be part of our permanent peace-time legislation. There may be controversy about that, but I do not think there will be any controversy on the point that direction of labour in time of peace should not be introduced unless it is shown to be essential to our re-armament and to our national security.
I feel that if it is to be introduced it ought to be the subject of legislation, which can be examined in detail. It is as important a subject as National Service and the Armed Forces. Indeed, I bracket them together as being too important for back-room legislation. I hope I have shown why my hon. Friends and I approach this Bill with great seriousness. We have examined its implications and, while we do not refuse it a Second Reading, these points, which I have summed up, should be carefully considered by the Government. We shall do our best to ensure that they are considered in Committee.
I make an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to see if we can show a dual purpose in our efforts. First, we should show that Parliamentary democracy can meet all the necessities of defence; second, we should show everyone in the world that Parliamentary democracy is the form which will provide not only economic comfort and national security, but moral progress, tolerance and understanding of the individual by the State and of the State by the individual, thus making it acceptable as the one hope of the world.

7.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am sure both sides of the House will agree that we have just listened to a speech of a most constructive nature, and I can go further and say without fear of contradiction that a large part of the sentiments upon which the speech was based would receive a wide measure of agreement in all quarters of the House. We in the House of Commons believe that this House, with all its weaknesses, is an example to every other country in the world. We have been born to, and brought up in, the tradition of Parliamentary democracy. Speaking for myself, I


agree with the reference made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), to the dangers of delegated powers. However, we have to accept them very largely as the products of two world wars, and perhaps because of the complexity of modern life. Therefore, we would agree that we must seek to maintain by proper safeguards the essence of Parliamentary control.
Tonight we are discussing a particular Bill, but before dealing with some of the points raised I might make one reference to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the appalling number of Defence Regulations which still seem to be in existence. There is a large number, but that number today is very much less than it was five years ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that there has been a regular pruning of Defence Regulations, and the last series of revocations was only last year at the time when the Supplies and Services Act was renewed for a further 12 months.
The custom in a winding-up speech is to deal with some of the arguments and points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and this I shall proceed to do. The right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) was the first speaker who referred to the retrospective nature of the Bill. The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) seemed to think that the Government were anxious to afford protection to Ministers who were responsible for certain acts, and he cited as one example the export of jet aircraft. Whatever may be said on that subject, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it does not require any Act of indemnity to cover that particular executive action. Whether it was right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but it is within the powers of any particular Minister.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who wound up for the Opposition seemed to think we were anxious to protect Ministers. I can assure him that we have no reason to believe that any Minister has done anything which requires an Act of indemnity. The Government may have done things that hon. Members opposite consider bad but they have also done a good many things during the last six years which we think extremely good. However that may be, there is no hidden purpose in this Bill seeking to protect any

individual Minister or a number of Ministers.

Mr. McCorquodale: If there is no reason, why the Bill?

Mr. Henderson: There is nothing in the Bill which is in the nature of an indemnity. The right hon. Gentleman has had much the same experience as I have had. He has had much to do with Bills and the drafting of them. He knows quite well that if we had left out the words in line 7, "and always to have included," there might have been some doubt whether actions which we think it was right to take were covered.
The Lord President of the Council summed up the position in his speech when he said that everybody recognised that these powers might have to be used in order to speed up the defence programme. He explained that it was probable that if we were to adapt our interpretation of the law we could do nearly everything needed under the existing provisions of the Supplies and Services Act, but that in the view of the Government the right course was to obtain express Parliamentary sanction and not to depend upon Acts of Parliament which were primarily directed to other matters.
Then he cited the example of the Korean operation, and said that the Minister of Transport had been able to charter all the ships he required, but that if difficulties had arisen we should have had to consider whether it was permissible to requisition ships for such purposes. Therefore, in order to remove any possible doubt, these words "and always to have included" were inserted in Clause 1. There are many precedents for these words to be included in order to remove any element of doubt. I can put it in another way. If these words were left out, I certainly do not believe—and so I am advised—that there could have been any question of any Minister having done something which he was not authorised to do. There are lots of precedents where other Governments have thought fit to include these words when they were clarifying the law, and indeed to some extent extending it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not want to be tiresome about this, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see that where what you are arguing about is a matter


of universally accepted principle, such as, I take it everyone agrees, retrospection is, to bring in precedents really counts against you, because the more there are precedents for it, the more the principle is going away and you are getting the opposite principle.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great difference between retrospective legislation and declaratory legislation, in the sense that retrospective legislation seeks to alter the law as it was before, whereas the present Bill is not retrospective but declaratory, in that it declares what the law was?

Mr. Henderson: That puts the position better than I could have put it myself. [Interruption.] I think it does.
I want to be quite frank with the House, because I think there is a feeling in the minds of hon. Members that we have some specific cases of acts by the Executive which we know of, and which we hope will be the subject of indemnity as result of the passing of the Bill. That is not the position. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) puts the point about bad precedents giving rise to bad principles. All I can say is that there is nothing new in inserting in a Bill the words to which I have referred.
The hon. and learned Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised the question of the direction of labour. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) also referred to it. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston-upon- Thames asked me—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not learned.

Mr. Henderson: That is the shadow of coming events. He asked the direct question whether we intended to direct labour. I can only refer him to the speech by the Minister of Labour last week in which he stated the policy of the Government on this point.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I cannot have put my question as specifically as I intended. What I intended to ask, and what I thought I did ask, was whether the Government intended to direct labour under the powers of the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: The Government have not decided to direct labour at all. The

Minister of Labour indicated last week that if the Government were intending to direct labour, there was no need for them to use this Bill, as they already have powers under—I think it is—Regulations 58A and 58AA. I think this answers the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen. There is no question of direction of labour under the Bill.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Accepting what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the Government already have powers, I would ask why it is necessary to put them into the Bill.

Mr. Henderson: They are not in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which indicates, or makes any direct or indirect reference to, the question of directing labour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the point is surely that the Bill would enable the Government to direct labour for the two purposes specified by the Bill, over and above the purposes for which it can direct labour under the Regulations. If the Government decided to introduce direction of labour, do they propose to use the Bill or to follow what in my opinion is the proper method of specific legislation?

Mr. Henderson: In the event of the Government deciding to direct labour—and I must enter this caveat that there is no question of the Government doing any such thing—all I can say is that they have powers under the Regulations to do so in any circumstances or spheres that they think necessary.

Mr. Pickthorn: Under the Bill the Government would have power to do it for a new set of purposes. We desire to know whether, if the Government did desire to do it for that set of purposes, they would think proper to do it by the Bill or to do it in specific legislation.

Mr. Henderson: The purposes in the Bill are included in the larger over-all purposes under which the Government now have power to direct labour.

Mr. Gibson: When the Government have made up their minds to direct labour, before they do it, or before they bring it before the House, will they have effective discussions with the trade union movement?

Mr. Henderson: I should have thought that that was almost an unnecessary question for the hon. Member to address to a Member of the Government which he supports. He may take it from history that the Government always seek to co-operate with the leaders of industry on both sides, when necessary.
The next question was about Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know why it was that we were doing it by Order in Council and whether this should not be done by affirmative or negative Resolution. At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the hon. Member for Carlton, I must again refer to precedents, going as far back as 1939. The extension of the 1939 Act relating to Colonial Territories was not subjected to direct Parliamentary control but to the same method as is adopted by the Bill. That has been followed in a number of Acts since 1939.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who seems, after a very eloquent speech, to have disappeared, about his fears of an iniquitous Government depriving him or his constituents of a right and making them walk three miles instead of one mile. It is a fair point. The public are entitled to be given some assurance on this very important part of the Bill. We have sought to provide that the Minister of Transport must be satisfied that the case arising under Clause 2 is sound for defence purposes and that road users—after all, the Minister of Transport is a civilian Minister and can, perhaps, take a more objective or less partisan view of requests coming from the Service Departments than can Service Ministers—will not be deprived of the use of the road until an alternative road is available.
As far as the Service Departments are concerned, the argument of military necessity, so far as we can avoid it, will not be used in order to effect closure as being urgently necessary where the plans are known sufficiently far in advance to enable a peace-time procedure for permanent closure to be employed, provided that it is clear that permanent closure will be necessary. I do not know to what extent this is an assurance to hon. Members who are concerned about the point, but we are certainly well aware

of the importance of not allowing Departments to ride roughshod over the existing facilities, and it will only be on a clear understanding and clear demonstration to the Minister of Transport that the road in question urgently requires to be closed for defence purposes that the more urgent procedure under the Bill will be followed.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), raised the question of compensation. I am quite sure that he does not expect me to say here and now that in the cases to which he referred compensation is likely to be paid. He will have further opportunities of raising the matter. I should, however, like to comment that if in every case during the last 10 years compensation had been paid to those who unfortunately suffered from the effect of Executive action taken for war purposes, I am very much afraid that the National Debt, large as it is, would be very much larger today.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at this again before the Committee stage? If he can pay compensation for war damage, I cannot see why a person who has been put totally out of business by a road being closed should not also have compensation. It seems a fair point.

Mr. Henderson: I think that the hon. Member knows that I will certainly look at his arguments and see that they are considered by other Ministers who are interested. I cannot go beyond that.
The debate has shown, although it is a sad commentary upon the present world situation that we should have to ask the House for this Bill, that, in spite of the differences which have occasionally been forthcoming in the heat of debate, there is common agreement among all parties in the House that we are wise to take these precautionary measures. They are a challenge to no one; they are an act of precaution justified by the present situation. I confidently ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. Frank MCLEAVY in the Chair]

Resolved:

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend, for defence purposes and purposes relating to world peace and security, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and Defence Regulations and other instruments having effect by virtue of that Act, and to make provision for the stopping up or diversion of highways for such purposes and for matters incidental thereto, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the passing of the said Act of the present Session, and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums falling to be paid under any other enactment out of moneys provided by Parliament; and
(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which, in consequence of the passing of the said Act, are recovered under section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, as applied by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.47 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Sunnerskill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I believe that the Bill will commend itself to both sides of the House, as it seeks to help a category of workers who must command the sympathy of all hon. Members. The Bill was brought forward to deal with the problem inherited from the days before the industrial injuries scheme began. Hon. Members will recall that when that scheme was being debated in Parliament a good deal of attention was directed to the position of the men who had existing rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the old cases. Some people thought then that these men should be included under the Industrial

Injuries Acts, but it was generally recognised that any suggestion of this kind raised difficult problems which should be examined further in the light of the working of the new Act.
In the meantime, the most seriously injured of the men were made eligible for two benefits under the new scheme, the unemployability supplement and the constant attendance allowance, which have, I believe, gone a long way in easing their burdens. Since those days the whole problem has been examined and discussed with both sides of industry, and our conclusion is that the workmen's compensation scheme and the industrial injuries scheme are based on such different principles that they cannot be assimilated in any way which would be fair to the men concerned and administratively practicable.
Hon. Members know that it is a basic principle of the Workmen's Compensation Acts that payments should be related to earning capacity. Thus, a slightly injured man may receive the same compensation as one who has been much more seriously injured if the effect of the injury on earning capacity is the same in one case as in the other. Under the Industrial Injuries Act, on the other hand, disablement benefit is related to loss of faculty, that is, loss of health, strength and the power to enjoy life. But under the more generous provisions of the Industrial Injuries Acts it is a fact that the most seriously injured men are often at an advantage over those under workmen's compensation. This is not, of course, necessarily the case with those with slighter injuries.
Apart altogether from this, I want hon. Members to recognise that assimilation would create a serious administrative problem. To transfer people still on workmen's compensation to the new scheme would involve an examination by a medical board in many thousands of cases. This would put a very heavy burden on the medical manpower of the country which might jeopardise the smooth working of the industrial injuries scheme. Therefore, after the most careful consideration we have decided to leave the Workmen's Compensation Acts untouched so far as they still apply. I should like to emphasise that nothing in the scheme alters in the slightest degree the existing rights and obligations of workers and employers under these Acts.
The examination which we made, however, showed that there was one special group of old cases in a rather unfortunate position, the survivors of industrial accidents which happened before 1924. They were left outside the main provisions of the 1925 Workmen's Compensation Act because their existing terms of compensation were, in some ways, more favourable than the terms in the new Act. Unfortunately for them, however, they were also excluded from later legislation which materially improved the position of the post-1924 men. The result is that today they are at a serious disadvantage. For instance, their maximum is lower and they do not receive any wife's allowance. Moreover, and in my view this is very important, they cannot have their pre-accident wages, on which all compensation rights depend, recalculated upwards in the light of current wage rates. Neither do they enjoy the privilege of having partial incapacity treated as total incapacity in certain special circumstances.
As a result of all this, they are worse off in many cases by a substantial amount than men who came under the later Acts. It is widely recognised that these men have a genuine grievance, and I have decided to remedy this. The Bill is designed to put men who have suffered an accident, or who have contracted an industrial disease, before 1924 in approximately the same position as if the later Workmen's Compensation Acts had applied to them, and to bring their compensation up to the level of the later Acts by means of allowances paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund.
I now come to the Bill itself. It will be seen that it is an enabling Measure, laying down the broad lines on which I can make a detailed scheme. I have already presented to the House an Explanatory Memorandum which indicates what I have in mind by way of provision. Later, the scheme will be submitted for the approval of both Houses, so there will be ample opportunity for hon. Members to examine it.
Although the principle in the new scheme will be quite simple, the scheme itself will have to reproduce the substance of some of the provisions of the later Workmen's Compensation Acts. The allowances to be provided will vary, of course. One of the most important pro-

visions will be that the pre-1924 maximum of 20s. for the partially incapacitated man will be raised to 40s. Again, a man who, because the calculations of his pre-accident and post-accident earnings did not disclose any loss of earnings, is getting no compensation at all, will be entitled to have his pre-accident earnings recalculated by reference to increases in wage rates since his accident. If the result of this is to disclose a loss of earnings, he will get an allowance. If the gap is £3 a week or more, he will receive 40s. a week. The totally incapacitated man who now gets 35s. will get an extra 5s. to bring him up to 40s.
Then there is an important provision for the man who, although he is considered to be capable of some work, has not been able to get it. Certain circumstances comparable to those laid down in the 1931 Act enable men to get compensation in these circumstances, and men who are in the same position will have their incapacity treated as total and have any workman's compensation they are getting made up to 40s.
Now I come to the allowance for a wife. As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this was introduced into workmen's compensation in 1943 as part of the supplementary allowances provided for by various war-time Acts. The provision is really rather foreign to workmen's compensation principles, based, as they are, on loss of earning power. It is rather complicated and took the form of saying that if a man had a wife before he was injured, he could get 10s. a week, or such proportion of that sum as the total amount of compensation he was getting bore to the maximum. There was a further provision regarding the proportion which all this bore to the loss of earnings.
On the other hand, we know that under the new industrial injuries scheme disablement benefit does not carry with it a wife's allowances. It is the man who is incapable of work and who is drawing hospital treatment allowance, unemployability supplement, or sickness benefit who gets an allowance for his dependent wife. As is well known, the allowance is at a flat rate and does not depend upon the degree of disablement.
Having regard to all this, we came to the conclusion that instead of a rather complicated scheme of wife's allowance, it would be better to have a simple rule


that if a man were totally incapacitated, or treated as totally incapacitated for the purpose of other allowances provided by the Bill, he would, in addition, be given 16s. a week if he had a wife dependent upon him. These allowances will accordingly be paid, subject to the same conditions as the wife's allowances under the Industrial Injuries Act. Furthermore, we are giving this allowance to the man who married his wife after the accident and not limiting it to the pre-accident wife.
Another matter I want to mention is that the scheme will cover only people whose workmen's compensation rates are still effective at its commencement. It is quite impossible to go back and bring within the ambit of the scheme men who have commuted their weekly payments or had them redeemed before it starts. Commutation or redemption after the scheme begins, however, will not put a man outside it. The same limitation, it will be recalled, was recognised in respect to the various amending Workmen's Compensation Acts themselves, and in connection with Section 82 of the Industrial Injuries Act which extended to the old cases the benefits I have already mentioned.
I should like to say a word about the organisation I am setting up to administer the allowances. The House will have gathered from what I said earlier that the administrative machinery of the industrial injuries scheme is not well adapted for dealing with problems of workmen's compensation. I propose, therefore, to set up a statutory body rather on the lines of various analogous bodies operating under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, some of which have dealt very successfully with a smaller block of old cases.
The members of the board will be drawn from both sides of industry and from my Ministry. An independent chairman will be appointed in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, and I hope to obtain somebody of high legal standing. The board will decide all claims to allowances and the procedure, which they will more or less settle themselves, will, I hope, be kept as informal as possible. They will always be able to review a case on representations being made to them, and I am sure that a board of this kind will have the confidence of the workmen concerned.
Since the money is coming out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, the Minister of

National Insurance is to be made responsible for payment of the allowances once they have been awarded by the board. It is proposed, in this connection, and also in some other matters of procedure, to apply various provisions of the Industrial Injuries Acts and regulations which have been tested by experience. As I have said, there have been discussions with both sides of industry, and I have no reason to suppose that these proposals will be otherwise than acceptable to workers and employees.
Finally, hon. Members will want to know how many people will be affected by the scheme. It is limited to pre-1924 workers and, unfortunately, no reliable up-to-date statistics are available. It is particularly difficult to estimate the number of men whose rights to workmen's compensation are in abeyance because of their post-accident earnings but who would benefit by the new allowances. As a round figure, something like 5,000 people will probably benefit. The total cost, including administration, is expected to be about £250,000 in the first year and will decrease year by year.
These men have been waiting a long time for this measure of justice and I am very pleased to be introducing a Bill which removes a long-standing grievance. I sincerely hope that with the explanations I have given—and I have endeavoured to be short so that my hon. Friends behind me will have an opportunity of making their contributions to the debate—the House will be prepared to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and to assist its passage into law as soon as possible.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This is, I think, the first Bill which the right hon. Lady has sponsored since her translation to her present office, and I think it would be the wish of the House that I should congratulate her not only upon the way in which she has sponsored the Bill, but upon her translation from the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of National Insurance.
From long experience, I know how thorny a subject is workmen's compensation. It has sometimes led to heated debates in the House, but the Bill which we are now discussing will be quite noncontroversial. It is, I think, somewhat like its sponsor, the Minister. It is a


modest Bill, it is a useful Bill, and it is a Bill which is pleasing to contemplate.

Dr. Summerskill: Thank you.

Mr. Messer: But it is a short Bill.

Mr. Peake: Perhaps at this point I had better say that I am departing from the analogy which I have been drawing, because I am going on to say that it is an enabling Bill and a mere skeleton until properly clothed with the scheme which it enables to be made.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman is getting indecent.

Mr. Peake: The Bill is at present like one of those models which we see in a dressmaker's window.
The detailed scheme is bound to be extremely complex, and we must look at the Explanatory Memorandum and at the Minister's speech this evening to see the true picture. I fully agree with what the right hon. Lady said about the utter impossibility of assimilating the old workmen's compensation scheme with the new scheme of industrial injuries insurance and the impossibility, therefore, of the Industrial Injuries Fund completely taking over responsibility for all cases of accidents which occurred before 1948.
The old scheme was based upon loss of earning capacity and the new scheme—so far as the long-term cases are concerned—was based upon the degree of physical disability or, as the right hon. Lady called it, on loss of faculty. That is to say, the long term cases are now treated in exactly the same way as men disabled in His Majesty's service are treated by the Ministry of Pensions so far as the assessment of their disability and of their pension is concerned.
The House will remember that Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, proposed in his Report to continue the basis of calculating compensation by reference to the loss of earning capacity. He went on to suggest that if that was done, it might be possible for the new fund to take over the financial responsibility for all existing cases. The Coalition Government in 1944 threw over the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge in this respect and decided to adopt what I may call the "wounded warrior" prin-

ciple for treating workmen's compensation cases.
I am quite sure, as a result of such experiences as we have had of the workings of the Act, that the method then proposed is far superior to the old method of assessing compensation by reference to loss of earning capacity. Nevertheless, the problem of the old cases still remained to be dealt with, and at that time the suggestion which we put forward was that they should qualify for the unemployability supplement at the cost of the Fund. To that was added, with our approval and agreement, by the right hon. Gentleman who is the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the allowance for constant attendance, which was introduced into the original Act in 1946. Let it be noted, of course, that these two provisions apply to all cases of accidents occurring before 1948, including those which occurred before 1924.
That, of course, still left the pre-1924 case worse off than those who had been injured between 1924 and 1948, and I should like the House to appreciate the reasons why it was not possible to apply the war-time increase Acts of 1940 and 1943 to cases of accidents which had occurred before 1924. The 1940 Act, the first of the war-time Acts, raised the maximum payment only to the level of the maximum already existing for the pre 1924 cases. It would, therefore, not have done those cases much good if the 1940 Act had been applied to them. The 1943 Act went far beyond the compensation levels prescribed for the pre-1924 cases by the Workmen's Compensation (War Addition) Acts of 1917 and 1919.
But the House should observe this. At the time when we were passing the 1943 Act the insurance companies who were being made responsible for the increased payments of compensation to all existing cases for which they had received premiums, upon the old basis of compensation, were already threatened, as a result of the publication of the Beveridge Report, with the extinction of their workmen's compensation business. They had already met us so far as to accept responsibility retrospectively for all cases going back to 1924. They were prepared on all those cases to pay the increased rates of benefit provided by the 1940 and 1943 Acts, without any increase of premium.
Let the House also bear in mind that by an agreement with the Home Office, made in 1923, a fixed relationship was established between the premium income on the one hand and the payments of compensation on the other. Anyone who had to take out a workmen's compensation insurance policy knew that his premium was adjusted restrospectively after the end of the year to bring it into relationship with the ratio laid down by the Home Office from time to time.
At the time I was making these arrangements with the insurance companies I was extremely gratified that they were able to pick up all the old cases as far back as 1925 and to undertake to see that all those cases got the increased rates of benefit then provided. It would have been utterly unreasonable and unrealistic either to have asked or to have compelled the insurance companies to pick up all the back cases going back as far as 1897, at a time when their business was threatened with extinction and they had no source at all from which they could recover the necessary funds.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I am sure that in fairness the right hon. Gentleman will admit that at that very time when those arguments were in his mind, in 1943, he received the most strenuous representations from the National Union of Mineworkers and the Trades Union Congress and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and myself had the pleasure of attending on the right hon. Gentleman at that time. I want him, in fairness, to accept that the strongest representations were made on those points at that time.

Mr. Peake: I say that everyone, including myself, would have liked to deal with the pre-1924 cases at that time, but I am pointing out that there was no fund available upon which it would have been fair and reasonable to have imposed this additional liability. Now the Industrial Insurance Fund is established there is someone upon whom responsibility can fairly be placed for assimilating the position of those injured before 1924 to those injured between 1924 and 1948.
I am not at all sure that the cases are quite as numerous as the right hon. Lady stated. My own recollection is that there were some 800 or 900 cases of this

character in the mining industry alone. That would probably indicate 3,000 or 4,000 cases, or perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 cases altogether, since a great proportion occur in the mining industry. At any rate, I am sure that there are not very many cases.
I would like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, about the number of these cases which have been redeemed or commuted by means of a lump sum payment. I think it is clear that the right hon. Lady is right in saying that we cannot re-open cases where a lump sum settlement has been made, but I wonder whether, since the Industrial Injuries Insurance Act was passed five years ago, there has been an acceleration in the rate of commutation and redemption of past cases by means of lump sum payments. After all, the insurance companies, the mutual indemnity societies, and so on, who have lost any new business in this field would, one imagines, be anxious to clear as many of the old cases off their books as possible.

Mr. Holmes: The right hon. Gentleman talks about accelerating lump sum payments. A good deal of pressure or persuasion has been put on the man receiving compensation to receive a lump sum.

Mr. Peake: That is exactly the question I was putting to the Parliamentary Secretary. I wondered if he had any evidence that there had been increased pressure on the past cases to accept lump sum payments since the passing of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946.
My own experience is—and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to check me if I am not correct—that as regards the pre-1924 cases in respect of the supplement given by the Act of 1919 that Act expressly prohibited redemption by means of a lump sum payment of the supplement but permitted the basic payment to be redeemed by means of a lump sum payment. If that is the case it is unlikely that very many of these pre-1924 cases have been redeemed in recent years, because it was only open, as I understand the law, to the insurance company to redeem part of the weekly payment and not the whole of it. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confirm that my view of that point is accurate.
This Bill is bound to cause some administrative headaches. In any scheme where there is a double source of payment there are bound to be administrative difficulties, and in these cases for some years to come a man may continue to receive his weekly payment of workmen's compensation and also receive something from the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme. The Fund will make up the deficiency to the figure stated in the Memorandum explaining the Bill. With these administrative difficulties facing her, I am quite sure the right hon. Lady has taken the right course in appointing a board and not leaving these cases to be settled in the county court.
There will be need for publicity about the provisions of the Bill. Among the highly organised coal mining community the news will very quickly spread to the pre-1924 cases, but I am equally sure that there are many other places where men will not learn anything about the additional rights which are given them. In fact, they may almost have forgotten that they are in receipt of a weekly payment of workmen's compensation. I know of an old gentleman who was injured in 1897, who has been in receipt of a small sum of workmen's compensation ever since. He lost a foot on the railway that year and was one of the first cases under the Act. I am quite sure that he will never hear of this Bill unless the right hon. Lady takes steps to publicise its existence, and I am quite sure she will have machinery at her disposal which will enable her to do that. I believe that the Bill is a just Bill, a fair Bill and an equitable Bill and that it will be very generally welcomed.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I hope the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of thought he expressed regarding the many Compensation Acts placed on the Statute Book. I remember that he spent a long period with high-level officials at the Home Office and had the opportunity of dealing with the problem with which we are dealing tonight. But they failed to stand up to the problem then confronting them. I would remind him that many men, if they had lived, would have obtained benefit from this Bill, and it ought to have been placed on the Statute Book many years ago.
I wish to offer to the right hon. Lady, and to her predecessor who now occupies the responsible position of Secretary of State for the Colonies, my profound gratitude for at least keeping the promise made in 1946 when the Personal Injuries Bill was before the House. It may be somewhat belated, but the outstanding point is that the promise has been kept. I believe it was the great Apostle St. Paul who said that it was better not to promise than to promise and not to pay. The right hon. Lady has promised, and has paid by presenting to the House this small, though very important, Bill which, as an ex-miner, I would describe as a token of remembrance to forgotten men. Those men had the misfortune to be broken and bruised upon the wheel of industry prior to 1924.
The method of calculating compensation payable to injured workmen was at that time manifestly unfair and the statement I have just made stands unchallenged. In the mining industry we have always said, and it may have been said in other industries, that the method of calculation of compensation to an injured workman was manifestly unfair. Men who met with accidents before 1924, particularly in the mining industry, were subject to under-employment and very low wages. The wages in the mining industry before that period were down at rock bottom. We experienced short-time, and no industry in this country suffered from the economic blast which blew over this country in those years more than the mining industry. In 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 we were working on an average only three days per week, and receiving very scanty wages upon which the compensation to an injured workman was based. Low wages, under-employment and many other factors had a tremendous effect upon the economic situation of men who had the misfortune to be injured prior to 1924.
It is as well that we should examine briefly the records of this House. Since 1897, the year referred to by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North, there have been placed on the Statute Book seven main Compensation Acts, and not one of them had any regard to the pre-1924 cases. I know there may have been difficulties, but difficulties are a means of progress if they are tackled in the proper way. Difficulties are surmountable


if the will and determination is applied to overcome them.
I am not unmindful of the advantages, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, which were contained in the 1948 Personal Injuries Act, which did provide some improvement in two directions; but they applied only to the serious cases. One was the unemployability allowance, and the other the constant attendance allowance. We were very grateful for those improvements when they could be claimed and the claim could be sustained, but they are a minor proportion of the cases which will be affected by this Bill. The vast majority of unfortunate men who will be affected by this Bill have not had any improvement in their rates of compensation since 1924, and one can quite understand why we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and wish for it a speedy passage through all its stages.
The aim of the Bill is, so far as is practicable, to put the pre-1924 cases into the same position as the pre-1948 cases. I should have liked to see a clean sweep made, and all the pre-1924 cases brought into the 1948 Bill. I fully appreciate, however, that there are administrative and financial difficulties, but it would have been a good job if it could have been done. I understand that what is proposed will be done by providing special allowances payable out of the Industrial Injuries Fund to make up weekly payments which would have been received by these men if the later workmen's compensation Acts had applied to them.
Although the supplementary allowances are paid out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, I am glad to note that compensation payments which pre-1924 cases are at present receiving continue to be the liability of employers. I hope the employers will not escape the liability which rests upon them for the pre-1924 cases. This Measure does not in any way affect the rights and obligations of workers or employees under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, in so far as those Acts are still in force.
I want to refer to three or four major injustices which this Bill is designed to correct. First, the pre-1924 total incapacity cases never qualified for the higher rate of compensation introduced for post-1924 cases by subsequent legislation. Thus, under the war additions

legislation they were limited to a maximum of 35s. compared with 40s. for the post-1924 cases. Even in the calculation of the 35s. maximum, they were penalised because they could not get their pre-accident earnings reviewed to take account of changed wage rates. The new Bill brings the compensation of the pre-1924 cases to a maximum of 40s., and that is a remarkable step forward.
Secondly, the partially incapacitated are also to have their maximum compensation brought into line with that paid to post-1924 cases. Except in the industrial areas where many of our men have the misfortune to sustain accidents, it is not generally realised that the existing maximum for these people is that fixed by the first Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, namely, 20s. That was the maximum governing the pre-1924 cases.
I know this House always listens to one who is relating his personal experiences. Unfortunately, I was carried out of a pit with a broken limb and I was off work for a considerable time. My full compensation—and I had to be off work for three weeks before I had a week's compensation under that Act—was 13s. I had to live on 13s. for a considerable period. If that accident had resulted in rendering me totally incapacitated or partially incapacitated, I would have had to be satisfied with that amount of compensation for the rest of my life.
Does anyone suggest that that is a fair way of assessing compensation payable to an injured workman? I could never understand the mentality of those men who devised the formula by which one had to wait three weeks before one received one week's compensation. So far as the basic rate is concerned, the partial incapacity pre-1924 cases will now achieve equality with the post-1924 cases for the first time. They will qualify for an allowance which, added to compensation, will bring them up to two-thirds of the loss of earnings, subject to a 40s. maximum for compensation and allowance.
Thirdly, the pre-1924 cases never had the right given them by the 1924 and 1925 Acts to have their pre-accident earnings reviewed to take account of changed wage rates. That is a vital point. Why was it so? Because the old workmen's compensation scheme related benefit to the


difference between pre-accident and post-accident earnings, the deplorably low level of wages received by many of those men 30 years ago has meant that throughout the intervening period their compensation payments have been reduced to an utterly inadequate level.
They have remained, and still remain until this Act is on the Statute Book, the victims of industrial conditions which prevailed in this country a quarter of a century ago. Clause 2 (4) is an overdue recognition of this injustice. In assessing the loss of earnings the basis of comparison will not be the actual pre-1924 earnings but the average weekly earnings of a similar man today. That is a remarkable step forward. Those under 21 years of age were covered by the 1925 Act. In their case promotion prospects will be taken into account, and their cases will be reviewed when they reach the age of 21.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the provision enabling certain partial incapacity cases to have their partial incapacity treated as total incapacity. I spent some years of my life dealing with compensation cases, particularly under the 1931 Act, when we used to describe men who had sustained injury, recovered to a degree that they could undertake work and, having searched, could not get any work at all, as the "odd lot." The "odd lot" will benefit by this Measure. In my judgment, some of the most tragic cases with which I have had to deal under the Workmen's Compensation Acts are those men who had partially recovered from their injuries but were nevertheless unable to get work. It is a crying shame that men who, in performing the daily round and common task, had the misfortune to sustain an accident, should be unable, after their partial recovery, to get work anywhere, because they were the unfortunate victims of the industrial machine. In spite of the fact that their inability to get work was due to the continuing effect of their accident, their incapacity was treated as partial and not total.
One could go on dealing with this aspect of the Bill, but I should like just to say this. This Bill reveals to me the Minister's genuine concern to see that justice is done to these people. During the last war, when allowances for wives

were introduced, they were limited to post-1924 cases; the pre-1924 cases had not the advantage of those allowances which were conceded to the post-1924 cases. Under the new scheme the total incapacity pre-1924 case will qualify for a wife's allowance on broadly the same conditions as apply under the National Insurance Scheme. I should like to put a question to my right hon. Friend. Will she clarify what is meant by "public funds" when she is dealing with this type of case?
The administrative machine for dealing with claims is outlined in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I should like here to pay a tribute because to me, as a humble layman, this Explanatory Memorandum is very comprehensible compared with some which have been submitted to this House. A board is to be set up, consisting of a legal chairman and an equal number of employers' and workers' representatives. I plead with my right hon. Friend to be extremely careful to see that the representatives on this board are men of experience in the industrial world. That is of paramount importance for a board which is to administer this Measure.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North, that there will be work to be done in publicising this scheme. A great amount of work will have to be done in order that it may be brought to the attention of those who are to benefit by it. I know that the trade unions will do their best; I know that the organisations of which many men are members will do their best; but let us remember that many of the men who should benefit by this scheme are outside industry and outside insurance, and it will be difficult to get at them.
I conclude on this note. I have always held that it is not possible to assess life and limb in terms of s. d. As long as we have wars, we shall have wounded and disabled men. As long as we have industry, we shall have injured and disabled men. And whether on the field of battle or in the industrial field, if men are maimed and disabled it is the duty of the State and of industry to see that those men are protected from hardship and want, The Minister has done her duty. She has kept her promise. It now remains for this House to follow by giving the Bill a


Second Reading. I welcome the Bill and wish it all speed throughout its remaining stages.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I was interested, in particular, in that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in which he referred to people excluded from the Bill, because I also want to refer to them, as I may in a Second Reading speech. I do not know whether I should say that I hoped there would be more people involved here, but certainly I hoped there would not be fewer. It seemed rather small beer that, after all these years—27 or 28 years—we should now be catching up with injustice, but for only 5,000 people. If I said I was sorry that there are only 5,000 people involved, it might sound as if I were callous. Of course, I am not. My hope is that the Minister may be persuaded to go a little further. She used one phrase in her speech, which I noted, "I have decided to remedy this"—the position of the pre-1924 men. I hope she will decide to remedy something else—something about which I put down three Questions last Monday week.
I had the experience, which is not uncommon to my hon. Friends, of meeting three different constituents from the mining industry. The first told me that he was a partial compensation miner, that he followed the representations of the Prime Minister and worked harder on Saturdays, that he earned another 10s. a week and, as a result, found he was no better off in the end because the 10s. was deducted from his partial compensation. These things can be put right when superior Ministers take control of them. If the Prime Minister were able to pay attention to this I am sure he would realise that this kind of thing is frustrating the appeal which he so genuinely made.
The next case concerned a man who was sitting next to the miner about whom I have just spoken. He also obeyed the recommendations of the Prime Minister and the chairman of the National Coal Board and did an extra shift. He found that not only was his extra money deducted from his partial compensation but that he was charged Income Tax on the increased earnings and was worse off at the end of the extra effort than he was before he made it. These facts are known to my hon. Friends and to the Minister,

and I hope that more Members of the Government will learn about them by reading the report of this debate.
The third and most fantastic case of all concerned a miner who had retired through old age. He was a partial compensation miner and he found that when the general wage of the industry rose by 3s. or so a shift, about October, although he was not working because of old age, the increase in the wages of the other men in the industry resulted in his weekly income falling by that amount.
Those are three fantastic and ridiculous situations which the Government and the Minister permit to continue. I asked three Questions on the subject the other day. Unfortunately, they were rather late in the day and were not reached with the Oral Questions. I asked the Minister of National Insurance, first:
Whether she is aware that a partial-compensation miner does not benefit from an increase in his earnings, because it is deducted from his compensation, which discourages extra effort; and what action she proposes to take to remedy this matter;
The second Question was:
Whether she is aware that a partial-compensation miner is worse off when he receives a rise in his earnings, for not only is the rise deducted from his compensation, but also he has to pay Income Tax on the rise; and what action she proposes to take to end this deterrent to increased effort;
The third Question was:
Whether she is aware that an old age retired miner in receipt of partial compensation suffers a reduction in his compensation when there is a general wage increase in the industry, although being retired he does not share in the rise and what action she proposes to take to stop this anomaly.
The Minister replied:
It has for many years been inherent in the principles underlying Workmen's Compensation that a man's compensation might in certain circumstances be affected by changes in wage rates and I cannot undertake to re-open the question now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 22–3.]
Perhaps the word "now" may give us hope, but I still think she should. I still think she should make representations to senior Ministers—to Ministers in the Cabinet—because these anomalies I have referred to really should cease. I know of a number of cases. There are 123 cases in one colliery alone. It is obvious to me—I hope it is to other people as well—that it is a most ridiculous thing that the Government should allow this to continue, knowing, as they do, the facts


—and not one of my hon. Friends who knows more about this than I do has contradicted me.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I appeal, through her, to Cabinet Ministers, and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to wipe out the Income Tax payable in these cases, though I think that, probably, the best way to deal with the matter would be simply never to interfere with the partial compensation. If a man has partial compensation and then works an extra shift, let him keep his compensation and his extra money. If there is an old, retired miner with partial compensation, do not let us deduct the pay rises of others from his money. All these things as they are seem to me to make no sense whatever.
I feel very strongly about this matter and I shall pursue it until it is rectified. I know I have the good will of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and particularly those who are connected with the coalmining industry, where injuries are more numerous and more serious than in other industries. Without taking up any more of the time of the House, for I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak of this and other matters, I beg the Minister of National Insurance to put these things right. She said she had decided to remedy the position of the pre-1924 men. I hope that she will also decide to remedy the anomalies I have mentioned.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: This very pleasant and, of course, non-controversial Bill is in one sense—and it is important to look at this because it was brought up by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)—an admission of failure. It is a failure for which nobody, and particularly the right hon. Lady and her Department, is responsible; but it admits that it has been found impossible to unify as many people hoped, Workmen's Compensation and the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
I should like to say a word about that first. When the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act was before the House for Second Reading five and a half years ago, the then Parliamentary Secretary said:

The leaving of those old cases … is, so far as the Minister is concerned, not good enough. He is very much concerned, and very desirous, that there should not he this difference of benefit for workers who are injured."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 352.]
The Secretary of State for the Colonies, whom I am glad to see in his place, because I know that this subject is as near to his heart as any, repeated in Committee the same promise, and said that conversations were then proceeding. Five and a half years have since passed.
Not in complaint in any way about that time, for I know how difficult and how complex those negotiations may have been, I should like to refer—and, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary will take up this point—to paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, which says:
Detailed examination of the problem has shown that the Workmen's Compensation Scheme and the Industrial Injuries Scheme cannot he assimilated.
All right. With regret, and with no special knowledge of the subject, I accept that. It goes on to say:
The examination did not disclose the need for any further provision for the general run of these old cases …
Frankly, that rather surprises me, and I should like to know whether the Minister is quite satisfied that that is true now. I do not know when this examination took place—whether it has been a continuing examination from 1945, or whether the examination of this aspect of the problem was, perhaps, completed three or four years ago. This much is true, that if the Minister were satisfied there was no need for special provision for the general line of cases in, say, 1947, that does not mean that there is no need for general provision—apart from the special provision which I will come to in a minute—in 1950, still less in 1951. True, the Explanatory Memorandum later hopes that employers may be relieved of direct responsibility for workmen's compensation cases.
As I understand it, that means merely that there may be a financial arrangement, presumably in return for a lump sum, and it still gives no hope that the basis of compensation, which is the real crux of the problem, can ever be altered for the workmen's compensation cases. Many of these people are, of course, below the 1948 level. I know that many hon. Members listening to me have more personal knowledge of this than myself, but


I should have thought that many of them were perhaps below the minimum National Assistance scales, and I do not think the National Assistance benefits were in any way designed, anyhow when they were introduced, to supplement what was supposed to be an existing social service.
I want to ask one question on the finance of the scheme. The payments are to be made out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. We have recently had the balance sheet of the Fund for the year ending 31st March, 1950, which tells us that contributions were £36¼ million, benefits were £12 million, and there was an increase in the Fund of £23 million. It is true that there is bound to be a surplus in the early years, because, obviously, the long-term cases have not had a chance to accumulate. I am not suggesting—and it would be wholly irresponsible to suggest it—that that Fund is available in any way to reduce contributions or to increase benefits, but it is an impressive addition in one year, and two questions seem to arise. I should like to know when we shall have a report on this scheme, in the same way as we have had an interim report on the National Insurance Scheme.
In particular, I doubt—and I put a similar Question to the right hon. Lady a few weeks ago in regard to the National Insurance Scheme—whether we should wait five years for the quinquennial review of these two schemes. Many things have altered in these five years: there are competing demands; there are cases on leaving school, as was anticipated—and I am not blaming anybody but merely making the point. I hold very strongly to the view that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing these schemes and these surpluses in the two funds much sooner than the five years that was planned when these measures were introduced.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Beveridge Report recommended that.

Mr. MacLeod: I am very glad to hear it. All that has happened is that we have been given an interim report—I may be wrong in this—by the Government actuaries, but I do not think there has been a Government pronouncement that Parliament will have an opportunity of reviewing the scheme in full before the

five years is up, which is what I am now asking for.
Lastly, on the small points of detail I want to raise a question on Clause 2 (4, b). Although this may appear to be a Committee point it is not, and I raise it because if my hon. Friends attempt to mention this on the Money Resolution they will probably be stopped. As I understand it, this provision in subsection (4, b) has been copied from previous Acts. It was certainly in the 1923 and the 1906 Acts. Do we really need line 23 with the restriction:
less than twenty-one years of age
because a man does not always come to the highest grade in his particular class of employment just because he is 21? It may conceivably take him some years after that. I would have thought that this subsection might have read better if we left out that line and said that a person's weekly loss of earnings shall be ascertained "with due regard to the reasonable prospects of advancement at that time of a person of similar age in his grade of employment," and not go into the details of whether he was or was not at the time 20 or 22. I am raising this point now because we may be stopped from putting down an Amendment, because of the Money Resolution. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter and see if there is justice in it. If there is—and I rather think that there is—perhaps the Government will take up the question.
Finally, the hon. Member for Ince talked about previous legislation in this field. It is very difficult for me, because I am younger than he is and have no personal but only theoretical experience of that field, to understand to the full extent the bitterness with which he talks about this matter.

Mr. T. Brown: I have no bitterness in my mind at all. I was perhaps led away because of my enthusiasm that the right thing should be done.

Mr. MacLeod: I accept that, because, as we all know, there is no bitterness in the hon. Gentleman's mind or heart. Nevertheless, there is bitterness in this field. I think that it is a mistake to look at previous legislation with the eyes of 1951. It is a mistake to look back to Joseph Chamberlain's 1897 Act as if it had been passed within the last three or four years. In its time and the circum-


stances of that time it may well be that the Act of Joseph Chamberlain was just as great as any of the workmen's compensation Measures which have been passed.

Mr. Blyton: The most pernicious Compensation Act, that of 1924, was passed by a Conservative Government.

Mr. MacLeod: That may be so. But I think that it is a mistake to look back with the eyes of today on the legislation of yesterday. The Elizabethan poor law system, founded in 1661, looks monstrous and ludicrous to our eyes today, but it was generations, and, in many cases, centuries in front of the legislation of other countries at the time when it was passed; and that was even before there was a Tory Party.
Let me end by welcoming the Bill. It does, as I said at the beginning of my speech, remove a hope that we might unite workmen's compensation with industrial injuries, and that is a great disappointment, not only to the practical people but to the people who have studied this from a theoretical point of view. That hope has gone, but I think that one hope of unity is still left, and that in time we may assimulate industrial injuries into the National Insurance Scheme itself.
I believe that, just as the workmen's compensation scheme became out of date, the conception of industrial injuries compensation will inevitably become out of date. I look forward to the time when we shall have not only greatly increased sickness benefits, but when the price of injury will be included. It matters little to the widow or wife whether her husband was injured at work or in some other field of activity. It is because the Bill is a step towards unity in that field that I give it all the welcome I can.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Finch: I was very pleased to note that the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) supported the Bill. I was very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because I had the privilege in 1943, in company with other representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers, of meeting him when he was at the Home Office. I know that he

has had a wide and varied experience in matters of compensation. Looking back over the years, I can only regret that an insurance fund on the lines we are discussing today was not created to bring in these older men.
I welcome the Bill because it will enable the Ministry to give some redress to those who sustained injury in the course and arising out of their employment prior to 1st January, 1924. We know that there are many men who have had long periods of hardship, men who have lost their limbs or suffered spinal injuries, whose maximum payment has been 35s. a week. In many cases the amount has been less. There are men in the South Wales coalfield who have been most seriously disabled and have had no pension at all. I am sure that the miners will welcome the Bill because it gives some relief to their older comrades in the industry. This is another instance of the Government implementing the promise that was made.
I would point out that the Compensation Acts of 1906 and 1925 are based on earning capacity. That means that a man cannot get compensation until he can show there is a difference between his pre-accident and post-accident earnings. Years ago the skilled craftsman, the skilled engineer and the miner might have been earning £2 10s. a week. That meant that when a man suffered injury and was given a light job to do because of his disablement he might receive no compensation because wages had increased beyond his pre-accident earnings. This was recognised in 1943, when an Act was passed to enable men under the 1925 Compensation Act to have their pre-accident wages reviewed. That meant that if a man was receiving £2 10s. a week before his accident, he could come along and say that there had been an increase in the wages for the job of some £3, £4 or £5 a week, which would enable him to obtain a partial pension.
As I have already said, it is quite clear that these cases were not brought under the 1906 Act, with the result that they were still tied to £2 10s. or £3 a week irrespective of the fact that subsequently they had a job at higher wages. In my own district of South Wales there are men who, because of this, are not getting any compensation at all. It did not apply only when a man was in work but when


he was out of work. Then he was deemed able to earn £5 a week. When he went before a county court judge invariably he was asked what his earnings were. He may have had a sitting-down job which was well paid, but he was tied to the £2 10s. a week, with the result that when he was out of work or when he had to go out of industry at 65 or 70, he had no compensation at all. For those reasons there are many people in South Wales who will welcome this Bill, because after many years they will obtain some compensation.
Reference was made by the Minister to cases of people totally disabled. If a man is totally incapacitated, he will receive a wage and the maximum of 56s. a week, but the question arises—will those men who may not be regarded as totally disabled be treated as such? Under the 1931 Act it was provided that when a person could show that he made efforts to obtain employment and failed to get it, he could be regarded as totally incapacitated and obtain compensation; but that did not apply to the men under the 1906 Act, and I should be very interested to know from the Minister whether it is quite clear that there will be provision for those persons who can show that they have made all reasonable efforts to obtain employment to be brought within the provisions of this Bill.
I want to congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Measure and abolishing an iniquitous piece of legislation. Under the 1925 Act, supplementary allowances for a wife were paid only if there was a wife at the date of the accident. Many of the men I know were single at the time of accident, and then later, getting light work, they got married. For the purposes of compensation they were still treated as single men. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in a Bill which does not restrict compensation to the position obtaining under the 1925 Act. Under this Measure a married man, irrespective of the date of marriage, will be able to obtain the maximum payment—16s. for the wife and 40s. for the man, making 56s. in all.
There are two points to which I wish to call the Minister's attention. First, there is the question of the person who has two accidents. In this Bill it has been restricted to a total amount of 56s. Under the 1925 Act a person can receive two rates of compensation and can exceed the

maximum in certain instances. Take the case of a person who has an accident and whose pre-accident wages were £5 a week; he partially recovers, and the compensation is based on half the difference between his post- and pre-accident earnings, so that he gets £2 10s. a week. Ultimately he returns to light work and there he sustains another accident. His pre-accident earnings may have been £5 or £6 per week. Again, he partially recovers from the second accident and he is entitled under the Act of 1925 to another partial compensation. The result is that he can get £3 or £4 per week with the two rates of compensation. I know that may seem an exaggerated case but such cases exist.

Mr. Leslie Hale: There is also the case where the first accident is very slight and the man goes back to light work for a short period while he is recovering. He then has a very grave accident while at the light work, and afterwards for the rest of his life his compensation is based upon the earnings he was receiving in the light work.

Mr. Finch: That is quite true, but I am giving the case of a man with far higher wages prior to both accidents. Under the Bill, it does not matter how many accidents a man may have; he is tied to compensation of 56s. per week. I wonder whether the Minister could have another look at that matter.
The Minister has referred to the question of lump sum payments. I draw her attention to the fact that there have been cases where colliery companies have gone into liquidation and they have commuted the men's claims not on redemption value, in accordance with the conditions of the Act, but have paid the men at the rate of 1s. or 1s. 6d. in the £. I have in mind the case of the Mardy Colliery Company in the Rhondda. It went into liquidation, and could pay only about 1s. to 1s. 6d. in the £. The same happened with the men who had been employed at the Bargoed Colliery, in Argoed, Monmouthshire. Again they received only 2s. in the £. We cannot regard those cases as lump sum commutations, redeemed under the terms of the Act. It is most unfortunate because many of those men have lost their compensation.
There was the case of the Lewis Merthy Company that went into bankruptcy and


where only 1s. 6d. or 2s. in the £ was paid, equalling a lump sum of less than £100. That is not lump sum commutation. It is different from the case of a man coming to terms about a settlement with his employer or an insurance company. These men were compelled to settle when the companies went into liquidation. I have raised these points, but I fully appreciate that they are rather difficult. I have drawn attention to them in the hope that something may be done about them.
In conclusion, let me say that we welcome the Bill wholeheartedly because it is another pledge that has been carried out. The men in the mining industry who are affected will look upon it with great satisfaction as the redemption of a promise which was made so long ago.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Lady upon introducing the Bill. Like other hon. Members who have spoken I want to say, as representing a constituency which is mainly mining, that the Bill will be very welcome. It has been my misfortune to meet many men who were injured at the time that the 1924 workmen's compensation scheme was in operation. I was glad that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) raised the point about the men who fell within the statute of 1931. They were men who were injured and tried to get work but could not do so because of their injury. Will my hon. Friend tell us whether they come within the compass of the Bill?
The men for whom we are introducing this legislation have long been forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) mentioned 1943. I think it should then have been possible to make provision for these cases. It is true that that would have brought a large number of people into the increases we are now contemplating, but, if the House had said that the increases must take place, the matter could have been adjusted by means of the premiums payable by the industries to the insurance companies.

Mr. Peake: My point was that the wartime increases were made in 1943 when this type of business, so far as insurance

was concerned, was already doomed by the proposed coming into force of the Beveridge Plan and that there would not have been time for the insurance companies to recoup by way of premium the large sums they might have had to pay out.

Mr. Oliver: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it was by treason of the fact that the Industrial Injuries Act was in comtemplation and not the failure of the employers or insurance companies to incorporate these men if it had been possible to do so and had time permitted? That undoubtedly provides an answer, but otherwise there is no reason why, if the House said that the benefits the men were receiving were inadequate, they could not have been incorporated in 1943 just as easily as they can be incorporated in 1951.
The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) go to the root of the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The points he raised under the 1925 Act, as well as the earlier Acts, cannot be remedied at this stage. I wish they could. The only answer appears to be that all the old cases should be brought within the ambit of the Industrial Injuries Act. I am told that negotiation is now taking place under which that may be achieved.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would my hon. and learned Friend say, in addition to that, that all the cases which fell outside the Workmen's Compensation Acts—cases of industrial disease—should also be considered under the Industrial Injuries Act?

Mr. Oliver: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In the course of operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, diseases have been brought within its ambit which in earlier days were completely excluded. All those cases should be reviewed.
Here is a matter that I wish to put to my right hon. Friend the Minister. It is a question concerning partially disabled men. By reason of the great changes which have taken place in the wages rate since the old Act was superseded, it must mean that dozens, scores or hundreds of men—I do not think anyone knows the precise number—are today debarred from drawing workmen's compensation because they are earning much more now than they were at the time of their accident.
I want to know whether, under the pre-1924 statute, compensation was computed not only on the basic rate but also on the number of days the men worked. In other words, if they worked half a week, that was their wage provided that the short time which the men were then experiencing was an incident of the employment, which meant that not only at that time were their wages exceedingly low but unemployment was rampant. It would be extremely helpful if we could know on the Committee stage whether there will be any change in the computation of pre-accident earnings, whether of the actual days worked or by some other method. Otherwise, it will mean that the rates of many men will be depressed, not only by reason of the pre-accident wages being low but by reason of the short time which was then being worked.
I see that in the Explanatory Memorandum it is suggested that if a person who is totally incapacitated, or treated as such under paragraph 6, has a wife dependent on him and is not already receiving an allowance or increase of benefit for his wife out of public funds will be given an allowance of 16s. for her. If a man is totally incapacitated and is drawing full benefit, even assuming he has been drawing his 35s. a week, which many are not doing, it is unlikely that he has been able to maintain his wife without drawing on public funds. Would it not have been better to suggest that where a man is drawing an allowance for his wife from public funds workmen's compensation should be substituted for this payment?
Everyone who has spoken about this Measure has paid tribute to the benefits which will be conferred on the people affected. I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for bringing in the Bill. I trust that not only will it get a Second Reading with the unanimous approval of the House, but that it will go through Committee expeditiously and before long find its way on to the Statute Book.

9.25 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The time is late and I will try not to make my speech too long, but, like other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, I too have been for very many years deeply interested in this subject from a medical point of view in my association both with miners and with pottery and

steel workers, and in my humble attempts have been of some service to them. If I say that there are two points, at least, which enable me to give a very warm welcome to the Bill, that does not mean that there it does not have very many more good points.
The first of the two important points—indeed, this has been dwelt upon by every Member who has spoken—is that the Bill gives justice to men and women to whom justice is long overdue. We cannot but remark upon the fact that the numbers of those who are left are now somewhat, shall we say, attenuated, for many, obviously, have died, and many more, we know, settled their claims for inadequate lump sums in the past. If we take, for example, the average age in 1924 of these injured men and women as 35 years, which is a fair assumption, they would now be of an average age of 62. Obviously, therefore, many of them have gone and their grievances have gone with them.
Another reason why I welcome the Bill is that, as I notice from the Explanatory Memorandum, my right hon. Friend considers that she will be able to administer the first full year of the scheme, which will be a most expensive year, for a cost of administration of only £10,000, whereas the gross cost of payments out in that year will be £230,000. The right hon. Lady and her Department must be congratulated on their efficiency if they succeed in administering the proposals of the Bill for so small a sum. It works out at about 4 per cent., and compares favourably with the days before the war, or the days in 1924, when the cost of administering workmen's compensation was nearer 40 per cent., as compared with this present figure of 4 per cent. I know that I am not allowing for the 12 per cent. profits that were made; I am speaking of the bare administrative costs, which were about 38 or 42 per cent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the total now 40 per cent.?

Dr. Stross: My right hon. Friend states, and I am sure she is quite right, that she will manage all this for 4 per cent. To all of us, therefore—certainly on this side—it is a source of pleasure and enjoyment—

Mr. Peake: rose—

Mr. Smith: A source of pleasure and enjoyment.

Dr. Stross: It is a source of pleasure and enjoyment that when the nation tackles a job jointly it is done so much more efficiently than private companies used to do it, in this sad field of enterprise.

Mr. Peake: I must refer the hon. Member to the accounts of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Fund, recently published, where he will see that the cost of administration is, I think, something in excess of 30 per cent. for the first year.

Mr. Smith: Let us get this settled.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, but none the less we know that, by and large, there is an enormous saving. I shall explain how it happens that we get this kind of saving, and again I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend.
Those of us who, like myself—and I am sure that the lawyers will agree—were engaged in this work found that it was anything but a happy sort of work.

Mr. Smith: I do not know about that.

Dr. Stross: My hon. Friend is not sure about that, but those of us—my hon. Friend will agree with me now—who know how bitterly we had to fight these cases to get justice for some men, will agree that the word "happiness" should not be used in association with it. What happiness we got was in our success in helping these injured men who had arrayed against them in these overhead charges of 38, or 40 per cent., learned medical men who were bought by the insurance companies to come and give their evidence. There were very learned counsel and they and their solicitors were arrayed against the men—

Mr. Smith: And well paid.

Dr. Stross: Yes, indeed, they were well paid, and why should they not be?

Mr. Leslie Hale: We have had two comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). May I tell him that 90 per cent. of the solicitors refuse to take workmen's compensation cases because they do not pay? My biggest damages for a workman was in a case a fortnight ago, where a man was not a member of his union and there have been many cases where solicitors have agreed to act for men without any thought of payment at all.

Mr. Smith: I will leave it to the people of the industrial areas, especially Lancashire, to answer that.

Dr. Stross: If I may continue my speech after this slight misunderstanding between two of my hon. Friends who normally entirely agree on these points, it is a fact that in areas like the potteries most solicitors lend their services without any thought of remuneration on behalf of the workers.

Mr. Hale: Would my hon. Friend tell that to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ellis Smith)?

Dr. Stross: My hon. Friend understands it well. A man left alone, without assistance except that which the union could give him, was in a sorry plight and had to face a great array of talent. It was not only doctors and lawyers whom he had to face, but he was harassed by insurance officials who tried to persuade him to accept a small lump sum. Then, a retired police officer was employed by the insurance companies as a spy to see if a man was fit for light or heavy work and how he spent his evening, whether he had a glass of beer at night. Such things, with increasing impoverishment, forced him, in the end, to accept a settlement which was much lower than his wounded flesh was worth.
I am sorry if I speak with some feeling about the matter, but I have heard it said that we should not look with the eyes of today at the legislation of years gone by. After all, we have eyes and memories and must use them to see that we progress continually into a more humane type of society. We cannot do that if we always forget that which used to rankle so much in the past and of which I am sure all medical men in the House and all learned hon. Members are as well aware as I am.
We have been asked why it is that we have not had this done before. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) has given his opinion on why it was not possible for a previous Government to apply a remedy. He told us there was not a fund available but today we have a fund, the Industrial Injuries Fund and there is money there which can pay for it. But this, after all, is national money and not money coming out of the pockets of the employers who originally employed


these people. If it is possible to use the national purse today it would have been possible to use it at some time in the past, for the principle is surely the same. We have no way by which we could have done this without bringing forward new legislation. I am not complaining because we all wanted this improvement. We had to accept this way of doing it and the nation should know that it is doing it collectively and it is not done by the employers in whose employment the men were originally injured.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary will take cognisance of three short points. The first is in paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Memorandum, where I note that the decision of the board is to be final except that they may review a case again themselves. That is a principle that not all of us find easy to accept and I hope it will be reconsidered because we will have to discuss it again at some time in the future.
Second, regarding Clause 2 (8) I do not understand why, when we are not changing the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Acts we should deny men the right for payment for two accidents or that the limit must be a claim total of 40s. or 56s. Third, I notice that a workman is to be subject to medical examination. Who is to examine him? I hope the Minister will bear in mind that these men must not be examined in the way medical boards today assess injuries, on the loss of faculty. It will be essential to ensure that men experienced in the work, and who know the industrial conditions in the areas in which the workmen live, should see what work they are fit for.
I am delighted to know there is to be no treatment imposed upon these men. To impose treatment as a condition towards an offer of an increase in compensation to people whose average age is about 62; to ask them to have an amputation of a bent or mutilated finger to improve their capacity for work, or to have a further operation upon a hernia which has perhaps twice already broken down, would be ridiculous. The time has gone by when we can impose medical treatment as a condition of giving compensation. As has been said by other hon. Members, I hope that we shall soon see the Bill—and we are all grateful for it—put on the Statute Book.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I would urge my right hon. Friend not to abandon hope of being able to do much more than this Bill proposes to do to get rid of all the evils and anomalies of workmen's compensation. I wish to reserve my opinion on the point expressed in paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, because much of what we have listened to in the course of this all-too-short debate relates to the anomalies, complexities and injustices of workmen's compensation. I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to go on living with workmen's compensation for the rest of our lives. That is the question.
It is suggested that there are almost insuperable difficulties in "assimilating"—that is the term used—the old cases into the new scheme. I would prefer to use the term "transfer" and to bring the old cases into the new scheme on the principles of the new scheme. After all, Lord Beveridge in his Report did say that workmen's compensation was based on a wrong principle. If it was a wrong principle—and everything that we hear about workmen's compensation confirms that opinion—why, then, should not we make a determined attempt to get rid of the wrong principle and transfer the cases of living men and women who are suffering from the injustices of that wrong principle into a scheme which we all agree has so much greater merit?
My right hon. Friend referred to administrative difficulties, but are we to allow administrative difficulties to stand in the way of a remedy which is so abundantly necessary, if we are to end such cases as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) gave to this House, and which none of us can defend? It might place great additional work on the medical services for a time, but surely the medical services of the Ministry of Pensions are greatly eased under present conditions, they having discharged a great deal of the work left over from the war. Could not they be used for the purpose of examining workmen's compensation cases when they were being transferred to the new scheme?
As to costs, reference has already been made to the flourishing condition of the Industrial Injuries Fund, but we must admit that there will be heavy liabilities in the future. Could not a scheme be


agreed upon with employers, and especially with their insurance companies, for the redemption of their liabilities under the workmen's compensation scheme for a sum of so many years' purchase of their liability, an agreed sum that could be transferred to the Industrial Injuries Scheme?
Finally, it is true that there is the suggestion that in some cases a transfer to the Industrial Injuries Scheme would not be in favour of the workman, whereas it would be in his favour in other cases. On that point, I suggest that we should not abandon the possibility of a scheme of opting into the Industrial Injuries Scheme where it would be to the workman's advantage. I think I am expressing the sentiments of a number of my hon. Friends when I say that while we welcome the Bill, and feel that all that is in it is good, we must reserve our views if there is any suggestion of acceptance of the opinion expressed in the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

9.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): This Bill, although very short and containing only four Clauses, has given rise to a very interesting debate. I think it would be expressing the feelings of both sides of the House, and certainly of this side, if I were to say that the debate could have gone on much longer than the two hours it has taken.
I know that my hon. Friends on this side of the House, in particular, have seized every opportunity in the past of calling attention to the pre-1924 cases, and rightly, if I may say so. I also know that they have been looking forward to the time when legislation of the kind which is proposed in this Bill would be brought forward. I think that all the evidence contained in the speeches we have heard from this side of the House, and even from the Opposition, is a clear confirmation of what I have just said.
I should like to make one point before coming to some of the very valuable and important points that have been raised in the debate, and that is that the brevity of the Bill in no way detracts from its importance. That has certainly been indicated in every speech that has been made. The proposals in the Bill will

affect only a small part of the working population, but I submit that they are important because they propose to confer benefits upon those who, as has already been pointed out, had the misfortune to meet with an accident or to contract a scheduled industrial disease before 1st January, 1924.
Another important point is that the majority of these men are no longer young and the youngest cannot be less than 40. For example, suppose that in December, 1923, which was the last date to be included in the pre-1924 cases, a boy of 15 met with an accident. He would be now 43, and that is about the youngest age to which these proposals can apply. The oldest case may be 70 or even 80. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) referred to a case which had come to his notice of a man who had sustained his accident as far back as 1897. May I reiterate what I said, perhaps inaudibly, when the right hon. Gentleman intimated that that man might not get to know about these proposals? If he will forward his address to us, we will see that his case is brought before the board when the scheme is operating.
Some of these people may be 70 or 80 years of age, and they have had compensation or have been entitled to it for more than half a century. There was brought to my notice this week a case in the small colliery town of Ashington in the Northumberland coalfields, where a man had a serious spinal injury in 1917, and from then until 1948 his maximum compensation was only 35s. per week. I will not go into details about the improvements that have been made in that sort of case arising out of the Industrial Injuries Act, 1946.
I should like also to repeat what my right hon. Friend said, that the number of cases will diminish steadily as the years go by. Some indication of this was given when my right hon. Friend estimated that the cost in the first year would be £230,000 and it is expected that in five years' time it will drop to £150,000. I should like to make another point about the cost, because I know it has been bothering some of my hon. Friends. Before July, 1948, the compensation for industrial accidents and scheduled diseases was the responsibility of employers alone. As my right hon. Friend stated, this responsibility remains. The difference between


the compensation or entitlement of these pre-1924 people, and what they will be entitled to under these proposals will be borne by the Industrial Injuries Fund. I should like to make one other point before I deal with the many questions which have been raised in this debate. The proposals in this Bill, giving as they do the same rights and advantages as are enjoyed by the post-1924 cases, will resolve the problem of the old cases, which, as has been pointed out on both sides of the House, is a vexed problem.
May I now deal with some of the points which have been raised in this debate? I was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North. I am sure the House will agree that he was in one of his happiest and perhaps lightest moods, and he drew one or two analogies respecting my right hon. Friend which certainly caused great amusement. He also entered into the realm of adjectives and I enjoyed the adjectives which he employed about this Bill. He said—and this is certainly something in this Parliament, particularly in view of the last few weeks—that this was a non-controversial Bill, very modest and very useful. I subscribe to that view 100 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman asked us how we were going to make these proposals known. The question of publicity is, of course, important. The Ministry of National Insurance have not been backward on this point, and long before the appoi1948, wide publicity was given to the National Insurance Act and the Industrial Injuries Act. So far as these proposals are concerned, that procedure will be followed to the full so that they can be brought to the notice of the public. We shall use the Press and the radio, and leaflets will be available in the National Insurance offices. It is hoped that employers and insurance companies may be able to put to the proposed board the cases which come under their jurisdiction, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned commutation, and that is a very tricky question. We are here entering realms of speculation and uncertainty. As I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand and appreciate, no accurate figures are available. He asked whether there had been any pressure to commute.
I have had fairly extensive experience of work in the Nottinghamshire coalfields, and I have known circumstances in which there has been pressure to commute, both by the employers and the insurance companies. There has sometimes been great pressure to take advantage of the very unfavourable circumstances which existed for the injured workman. I am informed that, while no figures are available, the rates of commutation accelerated before July, 1948, but since then there has been a considerable drop.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I hope that my hon. Friend does not intend to sit down at 10 o'clock and close the discussion, because he himself said that he would like the discussion to continue and there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who want to make points which can be made only on Second Reading. Is it not a fact that month after month settlements were being forced because of the threat, month after month, to re-try the case before a medical referee?

Mr. Taylor: First, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the business of the House will close at 10 o'clock, and that is in your hands and not in mine. On the question of numbers, as far we can ascertain there are 1,660 pre-1924 cases who are receiving compensation in the mining industry at the moment. It will be appreciated that there are many more who are not receiving payments because of the amount of their earnings. With respect to commutation of the war-time additions, the right hon. Gentleman knows all about that situation.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) spoke of assimilating the old cases into the Industrial Injuries Act. That is a very difficult problem and great consideration has been given to it by my right hon. Friend and by her predecessor, now Secretary of State for the Colonies. If I had time I could give the House one or two interesting examples to illustrate the difficulties in this field. We will look at the point concerning Clause 2 (4, b) which he raised.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on a very clear, concise and informative speech. I should like to say one thing to him on something that appears to be troubling his mind in respect of the partially-


incapacitated men. He need have no fears about that. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend, in the preparation of the scheme, that the partially incapacitated men, under the conditions laid down in the Explanatory Memorandum, shall be treated as totally incapacitated. Another point made by the hon. Gentleman was with regard to employers who have gone into liquidation. It is the case that those injured workmen who had claims on employers who have gone into liquidation are regarded as commutees.
My time has almost gone—

Mr. Bowles: Will my hon. Friend answer my questions?

Mr. Taylor: There were one or two other things I wanted to say, but my time is up, and my right hon. Friend did answer three Questions put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). However, I would say to him, in passing, that it is the case that the Workmen's Compensation Act is based upon principles which relate compensation payments to earnings, and that is really why the difficulty has arisen so far as the three cases to which he referred are concerned.

Mr. Bowles: May I interrupt my hon. Friend a moment?

Mr. Taylor: I have no time left.

Mr. Bowles: Are we to understand that that is my hon. Friend's last word on this matter? It will not satisfy many people on this side of the House.

Mr. Taylor: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I would point out to him that the principles upon which the Workmen's Compensation Acts are based relate payments to earnings, and that is the reason for the position in the cases he brought to the notice of the House tonight.
In conclusion, let me repeat what I said at the beginning, that this Bill covers only

a few thousand people, it is true, but it will remove a long-standing grievance felt by men who have given good service to industry in their time, and many of whom are still doing so. I saw quite recently in one of our national newspapers a reference to these pre-1924 cases as "forgotten men." I hope that both sides of the House will see that they are not forgotten, by passing this Bill through all its stages as quickly as possible, so that they can participate in the benefits. My last word is this: he gives twice who gives quickly.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation where the accident happened before nineteen twenty-four, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of National Insurance or any other Government Department in carrying the Act into effect; and
(b) it the Act applies subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Assistance Act, 1948, so as to reduce the liabilities under the Act of the Industral Injuries Fund by reference to the amount of any assistance grants, the payment out of the fund into the Exchequer of an amount equal to any such reduction.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

RAILWAYS (PASSENGER SERVICE RESTRICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I say at once that my purpose in raising this subject is to bring to the notice of the House the effect of the special position that has arisen because of the contraction of rail passenger services due to the need for economy in coal—

It being Ten o'clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

Mr. Harrison: I want, first, to discuss the responsibility of these restricted services; second, I want to obtain, if possible, some information about the period that these restrictions are likely to remain in operation; and third, I want to survey generally the temporary and permanent effects these restrictions have had and will have on railway operation in general, with particular reference to the financial position.
Before discussing the detailed aspects of the present position I think it would be convenient if I quickly ran over the present position. The total consumption of coal by British Railways is in the region of 290,000 tons a week, and the economy expected from the recent cuts in passenger services amount to about 10,000 tons a week. To achieve this saving of 10,000 tons a week, between 3,000 and 5,000 services have been discontinued. That is a terrific restriction in the normal passenger services operated by British Railways. It is claimed by some, including some who have a responsibility in this matter, that there is still a substantial service running. I would point out, however, that the effect of these restrictions on the whole network of passenger services is most unfortunate because of the great inter-dependence of one service with another.
In this connection, I cannot do better than use the word which the "Economist" used the other week, when these restrictions were described as "debilitating."—They weaken the whole service.
While it might be said that looked at in one piece the restricted services do not represent a large proportion of the whole, yet the effect of these reductions is considerably greater than appears from a superficial examination.
The general expenses of running a line continue, in the main, just the same. We have mounting costs, and the track maintenance, signalling services and all the other expenses continue the same as before, despite the cuts. Therefore, any economy in that direction cannot offset the loss of passenger fares which must arise from discontinuance of these services.
The other day, at Question Time, the utilisation of staff was mentioned rather forcibly. Fortunately for the assessment of the financial damage of these restrictions to British Railways, owing to the extremely wet and cold weather most of the staff liberated by the discontinuance of these services have been utilised on other duties. I would remind the House that continuous wet and cold weather particularly affects shunting train crews, who are one affected, in the main, by these cuts.
I would like to make one observation regarding the economies that are expected to be made in London transport. It is expected that 700 tons of coal per week will be saved in this transport. This is not coal which goes through the locomotive fire boxes, but coal that is supposed to be saved at the generating stations. I am personally of the opinion that it is impossible, if we are to keep the generating plants running, to save 700 tons of coal, and that the amount of saving which could be made by London transport in this direction is so small as to be insignificant, compared with the amount of inconvenience caused by the reduction of the passenger services on the London tubes, etc., which is so annoying the travelling public. I am afraid that I am not being very helpful to the Minister up to now, but I think that this position is one which should be ventilated. I feel rather strongly on some of these matters, as the Minister is aware.
I want to say a word about the responsibility for this state of affairs, which is most unpleasant. On 5th February, I asked the Minister a Question. I put it, in the first place, to the Minister of Fuel and Power, and was informed that the


Minister of Transport was responsible, if anybody was responsible. Therefore, we have the Minister of Transport here tonight, and we are going to tell him something about it. In my Question I asked to what extent he accepted financial responsibility for losses incurred by the British Transport Commission as a result of his directions to them to cut their passenger traffic on the railways. The answer I was given was:
I have not directed the Commission to cut their rail passenger services. In common with industry the railways have had to accept a reduction in their deliveries of coal, and to meet this have found it necessary to take off a number of trains. I am not in a position to accept any financial liability for any losses which may result."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 169.]
My contention is that the Government did, in fact, instruct British Railways to cut their train services. They could not cut the freight service, and therefore it was inevitable that the passenger train service should be the one to suffer.
In the debate on 16th February, we had the Minister taking a slightly different view. He said:
the economy which the railways have to secure in their use of coal has to fall entirely on the passenger services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 857.]
He pointed out that these cuts were not really the responsibility of the railway management. It seems, therefore, that the Minister does accept some degree of responsibility for this state of affairs. I would like to submit this very pertinent point, that British Railways should have been treated like any other public utility. It is impossible for anyone to suggest that they should cut their freight services, and I think that it would have been far better to have treated the railway service as a public utility. I do not think that the small economy of coal that has been made possible justifies the inconvenience to the general public and the loss to British Railways. I think that it would have been better to treat them as a public utility and to have left them running fully. The position of British Railways is bad enough—

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harrison: —without increasing the difficulties by these recent cuts in the services.
I know that there has been a word bandied in railway circles for some time—"frustration." This is another factor that will cause even greater frustration among the many men who are seriously trying to make a good job of railway operating. Railway traffic is shrinking and costs are substantially rising, and on top of that discouraging position we are now to have these passenger service cuts. It may be said that this frustration among our people may be due to the fact that they had not got the picture in its true perspective, and because it takes a long time to organise such a large undertaking as British Railways.
Then, we have a considerable amount of staffing difficulties. It means that British Railways will have an additional burden of about £10 million a year. We have accumulated losses of £50 million over the last three years, and it seems that our difficulties are mounting tremendously and that we should be receiving greater encouragement from the Minister than we are getting at present. My right hon. Friend should not consider that these passenger service cuts will be only a temporary loss to British Railways. These cuts will certainly have a permanent effect on our passenger traffic. People who have been accustomed to travel by rail will now be taking to buses, and they will probably never go back to the railways.
The most important thing is how long these cuts are to last. It will soon be Easter, and the Easter and summer schedules take a lot of planning. I hope that the Minister can give us a firm statement about the ending of these restrictions.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the Cup Final?

Mr. Harrison: That is something we have to consider. This is also Festival year, and British Railways ought to be given an opportunity to attract their rightful quota of transport business during such an important year.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) brings a unique personal experience and knowledge of railway operational matters to the House. Members will, therefore, have observed with considerable interest that he used the words


"debilitating" and "frustration" as applied to a number of aspects of railway operations today. This subject is much too large to be dealt with in so small an amount of time, but, nevertheless, it is a matter of grave moment to all of us. When we consider, as the hon. Member has observed, that railway losses are tending to increase year by year, we must measure carefully all aspects of railway revenue.
I was not fortunate enough to be called in the last transport debate, so for a few moments I should like to draw attention to a particular type of railway service that is not yielding the revenue we could obtain if arrangements were reorganised. I refer to the passenger half-day excursions between London and the principal provincial cities. Every Sunday these excursions run from London termini at return fares which are, on an average 250 per cent. above the pre-war rates. That is an astonishing comparison compared with the increase in standard passenger fares. I understood the Minister to say during the last transport debate that the general increase in passenger fares in 1950, compared with 1938 was of the order of 60 per cent.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Fifty-five per cent.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the case of the excursions, particularly the half-day excursions, the increase is no less than 250 per cent. Let me quote some examples. The pre-war half day excursion fare from Paddington to Bristol was 6s., from Paddington to Birmingham, 6s., and from Paddington to Gloucester, 6s. The cost of each of these today is 15s., or 250 per cent., above the pre-war rate. Between Marylebone and Sheffield (Victoria), the pre-war excursion fare was 8s. Today, it is 19s. 6d., or an increase of 2371 per cent. The pre-war half day excursion rate between Paddington and Wolverhampton was 6s. 6d. Today, the charge is 16s. 6d., or an increase of 254 per cent. That yields an average of about 250 per cent. above the pre-war rate, compared with the general increase of passenger rates of only 55 per cent. The loss of railway revenue derives from the fact that the majority of these excursion trains are being run half empty.

Mr. David Jones: Half full.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not worried which way we phrase it. To put it technically, the trains are loaded to only 50 per cent. of maximum potential capacity. There may be exceptions, but, by and large, these excursion trains are only loaded to 50 per cent. of capacity.
The average capacity of the excursion trains is 1,200 passengers. If the fare from Paddington to Birmingham is 15s., for the half-day excursion, with 1,200 passengers on board the maximum potential revenue to British Railways would be £900. If the train is only half loaded, the revenue is only £450. My appeal to the Minister is that it would be better to reduce the half-day excursion fare from Paddington to Birmingham from 15s. to 10s. and load the trains to capacity, which would yield a revenue of £600 instead of the present £450.

Mr. Harrison: The hon. Gentleman must be absolutely certain that we get the extra number of passengers before we can operate that scheme.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is quite right. I am pleading the case here for a reduction in excursion fares in order to attract a greater volume of traffic. I am quite sure that in the long run it must pay handsome dividends in consideration of the fact that, at present, very many people cannot afford to pay the inflated excursion fares that are being charged by British Railways. Although I have not warned the right hon. Gentleman, I hope he will consider these points during the next few weeks and investigate the cases that I have quoted tonight. I could give him 30 or 40 more such cases in support of my contentions that the increase in excursion fares averages 250 per cent. compared with 1938, whereas the passenger increases are only in the order of 55 per cent. I still hold the view that the principle of fully laden trains at lesser fares is much better than half filled trains at higher rates. Thus we could show a substantial increase in the revenue of British Railways.

10.22 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I welcome the fact that hon. Members are ventilating these matters, because it confirms, as I have often said, that we have many opportunities of dealing with these questions, and therefore


the argument often made in this House that we do not get an opportunity of discussing transport matters is not justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), has raised a matter which I feel should be ventilated because, in the first place, it affords me the opportunity of stating that there is no inconsistency between the replies to his Question and the statement that I made last Friday when this subject was raised on the Adjournment by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). The reason why I then amplified my statement was because I recognised quite clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, has pointed out, that substantial cuts of this description in the railways services are bound to cause a good deal of public inconvenience. It is a very natural thing when people are inconvenienced by a service to blame the person nearest to them.
I felt it incumbent upon me to make it plain last Friday that this does not spring from any deficiencies in railway management, but from circumstances over which they have no control. They have had to make their contribution to the coal economy scheme in the same way as thousands of industrial undertakings throughout the country, simply because there is not sufficient coal to go round at the present moment. In the general field of industry that has led to discussions between bodies like the Federation of British Industries, the trade unions concerned and the Ministry of Fuel and Power. My hon. Friend himself has pointed out that the railways are very large consumers of coal, and it was inevitable that they should save some similar proportion in their coal consumption—

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the country districts have suffered out of all proportion, in that the railway services from villages surrounding cities such as Peterborough, by making their contribution, have brought inconvenience of a much greater character than has been the case with the main lines?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree with that at all. On the short services we do not economise to any great amount, and it is the long-distance main line trains that

consume the coal more extravagantly. Therefore, for the purpose of achieving the economy that was necessary, the Railway Executive had to cut a considerable proportion of their main line services. I emphasise that because it is natural that there should be feeling directed against the Railway Executive, and I thought it was only fair of my hon. Friend to exonerate them.
The reason why I disowned responsibility for any financial losses was that, obviously, in circumstances of this kind, the Government were not prepared to meet—and could not meet—any loss suffered by any private industrial undertaking, and, that being the case, we could not apply a different principle to the railway services. As I have often pointed out, if that matter is ever to be considered, it ought to be considered on an entirely different plane from this. My hon. Friend stated that his remarks might not be very helpful to me. I have been in the House a long time and I have never expected it to be the duty of Members of Parliament to be considerate or helpful to Ministers; in fact, rather the reverse. So I do not complain about that.
I will now deal with the distribution of the coal at the disposal of the Railway Executive. My hon. Friend is quite right. Out of a consumption of not quite 290 million tons, possibly 180 million tons are consumed by the freight services. A knowledge of that situation brings out clearly the inevitable decisions of the Railway Executive. When facing circumstances of this kind with a coal shortage, the pressure on the freight services of British Railways increases. The type of haul, the necessity of always being there to shift coal and the necessity to keep industrial establishments working on minimum stocks, places an added strain at such periods on the railway freight services. So, instead of the consumption of coal for freight services decreasing in these circumstances, they are increased at such periods, and therefore, to meet the reduced deliveries to the railway system, the pressure on the passenger services has correspondingly increased.

Mr. John Hynd: Did my right hon. Friend say that 290 million tons of coal were consumed by the railways?

Mr. Barnes: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I should have said 290,000 tons per week and of that roughly a 180,000 tons is consumed by freight services. As I have indicated, if any economy is to be secured, it must be at the expense of the passenger services.
My hon. Friend referred to the small contribution of London Transport in these circumstances. I submit that when any administration is faced with a problem of this character and finds that it cannot depend on getting all the coal it needs, it must be left to the management to decide how it shall apply what it receives and secure the necessary economy. Therefore, if in the opinion of the Railway Executive, all branches of the railway administration have to make their contribution, I do not see that I could very well disagree with such a decision.
As to the question of how long the cuts are likely to continue, obviously it would be only so long as the cut in supplies, not only to the railways, but to general industry, operates. Without committing myself to any definite date, we know that the coal year comes to an end

towards the end of March and I should think that it would be possible to restore these services to meet the Easter holiday requirements and requirements from then onwards.
I want to refer, in passing, to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), about excursion traffic. I must confess that I am not qualified at the present moment to say whether the figures he gave are accurate or not. I know that the Railway Executive are very anxious to encourage excursion traffic and I can undertake at the moment to have those figures examined. This is the first time I have heard any complaints of a serious character against—

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Barnes: It is all right—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the debate having been continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.